Director of Public Prosecutions v Benton (a pseudonym)
[2023] VCC 561
•4 April 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| WARD BENTON (a pseudonym) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE SYME | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 27 March 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 4 April 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Benton (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 561 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16 – Incest – Sexual penetration of a child under 16 - 9 year period of offending - Three year delay between arrest and hearing - Predatory and manipulative nature of offending - Persistent denial of offending - Moderate risk of re-offending - Unknown prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) & Sex Offender Registration Act 2004 (Vic).
Sentence: 15 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 years and 3 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms N. Stevic | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr A. Hands | McNally & Gleeson Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1Ward Benton,[1] you were found guilty by a jury of a number of sexual offences against a child victim whose name has been supressed in order to protect her identity. The offences spanned a period of nine years. In deference to the victim, who was in court, I will identify her by the use of the term 'victim', as she is, in a real sense, the victim of the crimes that I shall refer to. There is, of course, a non-publication and suppression order of her name in place.
[1] A pseudonym.
2Mr Benton, you were found guilty of the following offences. Charge 1, that at Somerville, Victoria, between 1 July and 31 December 2009, you wilfully committed an indecent act with a child victim, who was then under the age of 16 years. At this time, she was approximately seven years of age. This was contrary to section 47 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
3Secondly, charge 2, at Somerville, in Victoria, between the same dates, 1 July and 31 December 2009, you wilfully committed an indecent act with the same child victim who was under the age of 16 years. This was contrary to the same section of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
4Thirdly, charge 4 at Somerville, in Victoria, between 1 July and 31 December 2010, you wilfully committed an indecent act with or in the presence of the same victim, a child then under the age of 16 years to whom you were not married.[2] The maximum penalty for an offence against section 47 was 10 years' imprisonment.
[2] Contrary to section 47 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
5Fourthly, count 3, at Somerville, in Victoria, between 1 July and 31 December 2010 you took part in an act of sexual penetration with the child victim, a person under the age of 18 years (aged then about seven) whom you knew to be the child of your de facto spouse, in that you introduced your penis into her vagina. This was incest contrary to section 44(2) of the Crimes Act1958 (Vic).
6Fifthly, charge 5, at Somerville, between 1 January and 31 December 2012, you took part in an act of sexual penetration with the child victim, a person under the age of 18 years (then aged about nine), whom you knew to be a child of your de facto spouse, in that you introduced your penis into her vagina. Again, this was incest contrary to section 44(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The maximum penalty for an offence against section 44(2) was, at the relevant time, 25 years imprisonment.
7
Sixthly, charge 6 at Crib Point, between 1 January and 31 December 2015, you took part in an act of sexual penetration with the same child, then aged 12 or
13 years, in that you introduced your penis into her vagina contrary to section 45(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The jury found, according to the statute, that your care and supervision of the child amounted to an aggravating feature of the offending.
8Penultimately, charge 7, at Drouin, between 1 April and 30 April 2016, you took part in an act of sexual penetration with the same child, a child under the age of 16 years (then aged 13 years), in that you introduced your penis into her mouth.[3] The jury again found, according to the statute, that your care and supervision of the child amounted to an aggravating feature of the offending. The maximum penalty for an offence against section 45 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) was, at the relevant time, 15 years' imprisonment.
[3] Again, contrary to section 45 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
9Lastly, charge 8, at Baxter between 1 and 31 May 2018, you intentionally took part in an act of sexual penetration with the same child victim, who was then aged 15 years, in that you introduced your penis into her vagina contrary to section 49B of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The maximum penalty was 15 years and at that time, a standard sentence regime of six years was to be considered. The circumstances of the offending, as a whole, are required to be noted in order to give context to the offending.
Circumstances of offending
10The victim is the daughter of your former de facto partner with whom you formed a relationship in or about April 2009. The child was born in October 2002 and was aged about six years old when the relationship developed.
11In mid-2009, during a camping trip, you had a motorbike accident. You were admitted to the Alfred Hospital for between two to four weeks. Upon your discharge, you moved in to live with the victim at her mother's home. The victim's mother took care of you at her home in Somerville.
12From that time, both you and the child's mother considered yourselves to be living in a personal domestic relationship. Initially, as a result of your motor vehicle accident, you were required to wear a brace attached to your head and shoulders called a 'halo'. You were required to do so for a period of about three months. Thereafter, you used a neck brace. I am told and I accept that the accident was a serious one resulting in significant injuries, including some head injuries.
13There is no suggestion, however, that those injuries were, in any way, relevant to your offending. The first offence occurred prior to the accident. Nevertheless, by the middle of 2009, the child regarded you as her stepfather, as did her mother and your family members.
14Your relationship with the victim’s mother continued as a de-facto relationship until about 2015. After that, and until 2018, you both still resided in the same home, although, it seems, the victim's mother spent little time there caring for her daughter. You apparently assumed that responsibility. She only had infrequent contact with her biological father. During the nine year period, the complainant was aged between seven and 15 years old.
15During the course of the trial, the Crown relied on evidence presented as context and tendency evidence. This evidence will be considered as part of the circumstances of the offending as a whole.
16The evidence before the court included evidence that events such as those described in the individual charges were not isolated incidents, and were part of a pattern of behaviour over time. I find to the required standard that such incidents did occur on a frequent basis, even though the complainant was not necessarily able to specify times. I find that none of the events were isolated incidents. I accept that the charges have not been alleged as representative offences.
17I now turn to the individual circumstances of each offence, which I will describe very briefly. Firstly, the Somerville offending between 2009 and 2012. Your sexual offending against the child commenced almost immediately after you commenced a relationship with her mother.
18When you committed the offences, as set out in charges 1 and 2, she was six or seven years of age. The first of these events occurred before you were physically restricted from the effects of the motor vehicle accident. The second occurred while you were physically restricted by the halo device.
19Charge 1, indecent act child under 16 - you were home alone with the complainant. You were both lying on the complainant's mother's bed and you rubbed the child's body with your hands over her clothing. With your hand, you subsequently rubbed her vagina or crotch area outside her clothing.
20Charge 2, indecent act, child under 16 - on another occasion, when you were again home alone with the child, you grabbed her and sat her on top of your body. You then rubbed your erect penis over her body and vagina area on the outside of her clothing. Each of these offences are of relatively low objective seriousness. The young age of the child and breach of trust are aggravating features. Neither were isolated incidents.
21Next, charge 3, incest - on this occasion, you had sufficiently recovered from your motor vehicle accident injuries. You no longer required the halo. The child was seven years old. You were lying on the bed in the bedroom shared by you and the child's mother, who was not present. You asked the child to select one of your pornographic DVDs which you kept nearby. She complied. You played the video depicting adults engaging in sexual intercourse.
22In that context, you suggested to the child that you and she copy the actors. The child was on top of you. You inserted your penis into her vagina, causing her extreme pain. This continued for approximately five to 10 minutes. Considering the age of the child, the pain caused by your persistence in continuing after causing pain, this is an offence of above mid-range objective seriousness.
23Count 4, indecent act with a child under 16 - on another occasion, when the child was about seven years of age, you were both naked in the bath. You placed a small plastic bucket over your penis, removed it and exposed your erect penis. You subsequently rubbed it on the outside of her vagina. You attempted to push further but ultimately stopped. This conduct is, and was, a serious and confronting act of indecency, an offence of around mid-range objective seriousness.
24Count 5, incest - when the child was aged about nine or 10, you were in the backyard with her. She was helping you move a box of nappies stored in the garden shed. After clearing some of the boxes out of the shed, you laid out a swag on the shed floor. You laid the complainant down on top of the swag on her back, removed her clothing, lay on top of her and inserted your penis into her vagina. You penetrated her vagina for approximately 15 minutes. By this time, she thought that this behaviour was normal. This is a charge of mid-range objective seriousness for the offence charged.
25Next, I refer to the offending at Crib Point, Charge 6, sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years. In 2015, when the child was about 12 or 13, you took her to Crib Point Beach on a fishing trip. She was in your sole care and authority.
26After parking your car, you walked her through bushland toward the pier. You stopped at a homemade hut and told her to go inside. Inside, you lay on the ground, pulled your pants and her pants down, and positioned the child on top of you. You subsequently inserted your penis into her vagina and penetrated her vagina for approximately five to 10 minutes. As with other similar behaviour, no condom was worn. This is an offence of around mid-range objective seriousness.
27Next, the offending at Drouin. Charge 7, sexual penetration of a child under 16 - in April 2016, while the child's mother was overseas for a few weeks, you were the adult in charge and had sole authority over her. She asked if she could borrow your iPhone 6 and take it to school the following day in order to show it off to her friends.
28You asked her what you would get in return and said that if she gave you a blowjob, you would let her use the phone for the day. The complainant put your penis into her mouth and performed oral sex on you for a number of minutes until you ejaculated into her mouth. This is a confronting and manipulative event in which you imposed a transaction of this sex act for a favour of a non-sexual nature.
29You were able to manipulate the child because of her trust in you. The complainant described the matter as if you and she were in a normal relationship. This is an offence of around mid-range objective seriousness for the offence charged.
30Lastly, the offending at Baxter in 2018. Charge 8, sexual penetration of a child under 16 - in May 2018, when the child was aged 15, she went to your room and asked if you would buy her some Vodka Cruisers so that she could take them to a party the following evening. After some negotiation, you required her to lay on your bed with you facing the wall. You removed her pants, rubbed the outside of her vagina, and then inserted your finger into her vagina. You subsequently removed your finger, rolled her onto her back and got on top of her. You inserted your penis into her vagina and penetrated her for approximately one minute. She was crying and then ran to her room as she continued crying.
31Her distress did not stop your actions. By the time this act occurred, the child was aware that your behaviour was wrong, and seriously so. You had manipulated her to such an extent that she had come to accept the transactional nature of your relationship with her. This is an offence of mid-range objective seriousness.
Sentencing considerations
32I now turn to some other considerations in relation to the sentence that will ultimately be imposed.
Disclosure, investigation and delay
33Firstly, disclosure and investigation, and a consideration of delay. In 2018, after speaking to some friends about your sexual abuse of her, the child told her mother. Police investigation commenced and over about a period of a year, two separate video recordings known as VAREs were undertaken.
34This is not unusual for such a longstanding set of allegations and the circumstances of such offending. You were ultimately charged with the above eight offences in 2019. Thereafter, there was considerable delay while committal processes occurred. There was further delay due to COVID-related administrative difficulties. A special hearing occurred in January 2021.
35Further court delays meant that the first trial was not listed until November that year. Your own counsel’s difficulties resulted in an adjournment. The trial finally occurred in September 2022. Delay, thereafter, was due to you changing solicitors. I accept that, in effect, three years delay between charges being laid and the hearing occurring is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for the interests of justice, for you and for the victim. You were on bail and in the community until the jury's verdict.
Victim impact
36Next, the impact of your offending. The victim and her mother have been affected by your offending in different ways. The victim's current fragile presentation is the result of your offending.
37As a child who regarded you as her father figure, she was malleable to your influence. It was this control you had over her which you exploited for your personal sexual gratification. Unsurprisingly, when the offending commenced, the child did not know what the sexual interference was and that it was seriously wrong, and criminal.. She was only seven years old.
38As your grooming behaviour continued, you encouraged her to think of her relationship with you as normal, and it became a situation that she accepted as normal and affectionate. As she came to appreciate the reality of the circumstances, she was hesitant to inform anyone. She had no available adult she could reliably turn to for help.
39The long reaching effects of years of abuse have included significant and complex mental health difficulties which have, in turn, affected her physical health. Her financial position is diminished by her inability to work which, in turn, is the result of her physical and mental health difficulties. There is not one part of her life that is not detrimentally affected by your years of abuse.
40It is not an exaggeration to observe that the years of abuse which occurred at an impressionable time of the child's development resulted in personal, emotional, mental and physical devastation. This damaged presentation continues for her today, notwithstanding the efforts she is making to get on with her life free of your influence. It will take a long time, I expect.
41Not surprisingly, her relationship with her mother has suffered significantly. Her mother has also filed a statement outlining the effects of finding out about your years of offending on her daughter. She feels responsible for not protecting her at a critical time. She experienced a period of homelessness after the allegations were made which placed her and her daughter in an even more vulnerable position. The victim impact statements, as a whole, remind the court of the usual, long-term destructive consequences of offending of this nature. It is for that reason that the maximum penalties are significant.
42The damage to the individual and to the wider community is nearly always serious. In the context of this case, the prosecution do not submit that the consequences for this victim, serious as they are, amount to unusual or separate aggravating circumstances.
Aggravating factors of offending
43I will now consider the aggravating factors of the offending and the objective gravity of the offending as a whole.
44There is no dispute that during all of the offending, you were in a position of trust with the child as she looked to you as her dad. The position of trust was encouraged by her mother, who also trusted you to behave as a father ought.
45Throughout the offending, you did not wear a condom. When the child was younger, this exposed her to a risk of disease, at least. As she got older, she feared pregnancy and in an extreme act of manipulation, you asked her mother to arrange a birth control pill prescription for the child.
46An assessment of the objective seriousness of each offence and the offending as a whole was necessary. There are some general considerations consistent across most of the charges .
47For instance, your offending very quickly became predatory and planned. It quickly escalated to a situation whereby, by the time charges 3 and 5 occurred, the child had a very warped and unhealthy view of the relationship. That, in turn, enabled your offending to continue.
48The lack of her mother’s parental supervision no doubt made your offending easier. Her mother's lack of what might thought to be proper and expected care of a child does not, however, mitigate the seriousness of your behaviour. Her mother admitted that, during the relevant years, she was addicted to gaming and had a friendship group from that activity. It can be inferred that she left the child in your care in order to pursue her own activities. However, she trusted you to take proper care of your stepdaughter and you breached that trust. You took advantage of a child who was effectively abandoned by her biological parent but your degree of predation is high.
49An important aggravating feature of the offending as a whole is, of course, the abuse of trust. Where trust is assumed as an element of the offending, such as in the incest offending and/or where the jury found her to be under your authority, it is not a separate aggravating feature. However, where breach of trust is inherent in offending, whether it is effectively an element or not, condign punishment is warranted.
50It is noted that there were no allegations of physical harm or threats toward the child at the time of the offending, nor were there threats made to dissuade the child from disclosing your abuse of her. In the circumstance of these offences, there was no need. This lack of a potentially aggravating circumstance is noted but it does not amount to a circumstance of mitigation.
51It is observed that the eight charged offences occurred over a span of about nine years. This fact is a relevant consideration on sentence, especially when considering the appropriate accumulation to be imposed on each individual sentence.
52Further specific aggravating circumstances relate to the age of the child when the offending occurred. For charges 1, 2, 3, and 4 and 5, the child was aged seven, and then nine years, and this is significantly below the upper range of 16 or 18 years for the then charged offences.
53For charges 6 and 7, she was comparatively older but by that time, her position was so compromised by her warped understanding of what was right that she was in no position to avoid you.
54On the final occasion, when she was 15, your offending was also a serious example of the offence charged. Not necessarily because of her age, but your distasteful behaviour in requiring a transaction of alcohol for sex..
55You were well aware that the child was distressed by your activity as she got older. You resorted to bribery and transactional activity to maintain your control of her. Your continuation in the face of her distress was callous.
56In addition, in each offence, the age gap between you and the victim was significant. Specifically, 22 years.
57My observations as to the contexts in which the events occurred are relevant. As noted above, the frequency of the sexual conduct as represented both by the number of charges and the context evidence given during the trial, enables this court to find that each offence was not isolated. This, in general, makes the offending, as a whole, more serious.
Mitigating factors
58I turn now to a consideration of mitigating factors of offending, again, to be considered when assessing the objective seriousness of the offending. There is no information before the court from which I can make a finding that your understanding of the criminality of your behaviour was in any way compromised during any of the offending.
59At this stage, you still deny the offending. My experience tells me that this is not necessarily an unusual position for a person in your current position; that is, before any offence-specific therapy has been attempted. Your denial does not make the offending either more or less objectively serious. It is not submitted that any evidence before the court supports a finding that your moral culpability is reduced for any psychological or mental health reason, nor is it suggested that your time in custody will be more burdensome than for others due to those types of considerations.
60I note that this is your first time in custody. No doubt, a period of adjustment will take time. It is pleasing to note that you have been able to avail yourself of courses and activities while in custody and that you express a willingness to undergo sex offender therapy in due course. This is in your favour.
Personal circumstances
61
In relation to your personal circumstances, I note you have no prior convictions. In the circumstances of this offence, a lack of prior convictions and therefore, an assumption of good character, is of some assistance. However, in effect, it was your good character and place in the family that enabled the family to trust you to the extent that the complainant was left in a vulnerable position in the house with you. I have read a report prepared on your behalf by psychologist,
Jeffrey Cummins.
62It details, via your self-report, your personal background and current circumstances. You are of Aboriginal heritage and report that your counsel advised the court that your family have recently discovered that their heritage includes ancestors in Tasmania. The real difficulties which were visited upon those communities are well-known. There seems, however, to be little family knowledge of what was the disruption, if any, or the potential effects of same in the past.
63It is hoped that connections will provide clarity in the future. It cannot be said that this potentially disjointed historical background has had a detrimental effect on what you otherwise report is a good and cohesive family unit. It does not seem to be related to your offending. You report a relatively happy background and upbringing, and an emotional closeness to your parents and brother.
64Your father, his brother and other family members have provided letters of support to the court, and it is reported that family members are in frequent contact with you. This is important when considering your support in the community which is always a positive when considering prospects of rehabilitation. It will be taken into consideration.
65Prior to the charges being laid, you were in a relationship with a woman and you resided with her. I understand that that relationship has since ended. You have two children from a previous relationship whom you apparently support when able. You no doubt have concerns about their welfare.
66You report some residual physical problems which persisted after your 2009 accident including back and possibly head injury complications. There is no evidence on how this may affect you in the future. It is noted that you were fully engaged and fully employed up until the time the charges were laid.
67The only sexually inappropriate act reported by you during your childhood was when you were about 10. You reported it to your parents, who took appropriate action. You deny the offences for which you have been found guilty. However, you express a willingness to engage in counselling which will target offending such as this.
68Although the psychologist opines that your offending may have been situationally motivated and opportunistic, the facts of the charges show that the situations were frequently manipulated by you to be in the sole care of the child. I am referring to Charges 5, 6 and 7. This does not assist you.
69The psychologist also makes the unavoidable observation that the offending is evidence of paedophilic and hebephiliac behaviour, thus, that disorder is a likely diagnosis. Mr Cummins does not observe any other major mental illness or disorder over the time of the offending.
Rehabilitation
70
I turn now to a consideration of rehabilitation and your risk of re-offending.
Mr Cummins suggests that you have, at least, a moderate risk of re-offending in the same way again in future. This risk may be ameliorated if, as is strongly recommended, you participate in a sex offender program. It is observed that part of that program will be aimed at assisting you to acknowledge your guilt. Again, my experience is that it is not unusual for offenders such as you, who have gotten away with offending over a considerable time, to frequently have psychological difficulty in accepting a verdict of guilt.
71It is noted that you are currently experiencing some low mood episodes while you are in custody. Corrective Services would no doubt be assisted by having access to Mr Cummins' report and I request that you consent for this to occur. In that way, proper supervision and future therapy can be put in place to hopefully reduce your risk of re-offending in the future. Your prospects of rehabilitation, at this stage, are unknown. Family support is a positive, as is your willingness to undertake targeted therapy.
Final considerations
72Finally, sentence considerations. Section 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) sets out a number of considerations for a court sentencing any offender. As is frequently the case, requirements for sentencing often pull in different directions. It is not in dispute that charges 1 and 2 will result in a custodial sentence. You therefore fall to be sentenced as a serious offender for the remaining counts on the Indictment. I acknowledge the requirements of sections 6D, E and F of the Act. The protection of the community as a whole, and this victim in particular, is always a prime consideration. It remains so, along with the considerations outlined in section 5. The sentences will be significant.
73The prosecution does not seek that section 6E be employed to the extent that a disproportionate sentence be imposed. However, the maximum penalties, especially for charges 3 and 5, and the assessment of objective seriousness of each individual offence, must result in significant terms. The offending continued over a period of nine years. The totality of offending over that period of time must be reflected in the sentence. I acknowledge that there was a long delay between the charges being laid and the trial occurring.
74Part of that delay was due to COVID shutdowns as I have noted, and partly due to the unavailability of counsel for you. I accept this has caused some stress. You were, however, fortunate in that, for that time, while custodial institutions experienced frequent lockdowns, you were in the community. While I accept delay has caused some concern, it will not result in an amelioration of the sentence You have been in custody since 9 September 2022, when the jury found you guilty of each offence. The delay in sentence after that was due to you seeking alternate legal advice after the verdict.
75The lawyers who had appeared for you at trial had, prior to you dispensing with their services, filed submissions and documents in support of your position at the plea hearing. Your counsel, Mr Hands, in part, adopted those submissions and provided additional submissions and information. There is no apparent detriment to you as a result of the delay after verdict. In addition to the sentence to be imposed today, you will be subject to sex offender registration requirements, and I will deal with that at the conclusion of sentence. Further, section 11A(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) sets out a parole period-to-head sentence ratio that must be fixed unless the court considers that it is in the interests of justice not to do so.
76I see nothing in any of the sentencing material in mitigation to vary that ratio. I have been referred to several cases by counsel and I thank them for their assistance. It is clear that incest offending frequently involves persistent and manipulative offending, as is the case for you. The sentences imposed must reflect that, and the maximum penalty is provided as a guide. The standard sentence provisions, as they relate to count 8, are also a guide. The cases that I have been given by counsel also reflect the need to give effect to section 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). It is noted and acknowledged that, as the objective gravity of the offending increases, so does the degree of accumulation required.
77The individual sentences imposed are as follows, and I will deal with them sequentially.
Sentence
78On count 1, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 12 months.
79For count 2, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 15 months. Those sentences will be served concurrent with each other, and as I will note very shortly, will accumulate six months on the base sentence, which is the next sentence that I will impose.
80On count 3, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of seven years. That is the base sentence. As I have noted, counts 1 and 2 each accumulate six months on the base sentence.
81For count 4, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of two and a half years, and that will accumulate two years on the base sentence.
82On count 5, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of six and a half years, and that will accumulate three years on the base sentence.
83For count 6, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of four years, and that will accumulate one year on the base sentence.
84On count 7, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of four years, and that will accumulate one year on the base sentence.
85Lastly, for count 8, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of three years, which will accumulate one year on the base sentence.
86Adding all of those sentences up and the accumulation periods, the total effective sentence for all of these matters will be 15 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine years and three months.
87For those of you doing the maths, that is 60 per cent as required by the Sentencing Act, rounded down for the purposes of convenience. I note there is pre-sentence detention to be taken into account, and I will shortly give you those days and the dates to be taken into account. In addition to the sentence imposed today, you will be subject to sex offender registration and reporting obligations for life.
88HER HONOUR: Pre-sentence detention?
89MS STEVIC: Two-hundred and seven days, Your Honour.
90HER HONOUR: 207?
91MS STEVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
92MR HANDS: Yes, Your Honour.
93HER HONOUR: Thank you. 207 pre-sentence days.
94MS STEVIC: That is not including today, Your Honour.
95HER HONOUR: Look, I'm going to explain the sentence to you, Mr Benton. No doubt, Mr Hands will explain it to you as well. I have set a non-parole period of nine years and three months. The calculation of the date which you are permitted to apply for parole will be calculated by the Sentence Calculation and Warrant Administration unit of Corrections Victoria, but in rough terms, it will be nine years and three months from the date you went into custody. I have not got an exact date for that today but no doubt, Corrective Services and Administration will work it out altogether. In relation to your supervision while in custody, I have asked that it would be useful for those who will be setting programs for you to have a copy of your psychologist, Mr Cummins', report. Is that consented to?
96OFFENDER: Yep.
97HER HONOUR: Thank you. That will assist those who are preparing in-custody programs for you, and those considering your supervision on parole on your release to properly consider what should be put in those programs for you. Mr Hands, is there else you want to raise at this stage?
98MR HANDS: No, Your Honour.
99HER HONOUR: Thank you very much, and thank you for stepping into the matter, Mr Hands, at the last minute. I know that you are elsewhere. It was, I think, in the best interests of justice and certainly Mr Benton that he be represented by you. Thank you very much for that. Ms Stevic, anything from the prosecution?
100MS STEVIC: No, Your Honour.
101MR HANDS: Your Honour, I will talk to my client by video later in the week to take him through the sentence.
102HER HONOUR: Yes, that is fine. You will have a copy of the transcript for the sentence very shortly, Mr Hands, to set that out, and certainly a copy of the order setting out the individual sentences for each charge.
103MR HANDS: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you.
104HER HONOUR: Thank you very much. If there is nothing else - - -
105MS STEVIC: Nothing.
106HER HONOUR: Very well. We will adjourn now. Thank you.
0
0
0