Director of Public Prosecutions v Bersey
[2018] VCC 1368
•27 August 2018
m
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR 18-00759
Indictment No.J10047659
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CAMERON BERSEY |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 August 2018 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 27 August 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bersey | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 1368 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: Aggravated burglary; RCI, possess drug. Summary offence: offending whilst on bail.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms C. Foot | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms E Clark | VLA. |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Cameron Bersey, you have pleaded guilty to three charges laid on the indictment that has been filed before me, being one charge of aggravated burglary, one charge of recklessly causing injury, and one charge of possession of cannabis. You have also pleaded guilty to a related summary matter of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.
2 You have admitted a criminal history before the courts. You are only 20 years of age; you are turning 21 in a couple of weeks. The plea in mitigation was heard earlier this month on 3 August 2018, and was adjourned to today’s date, pending an assessment of your suitability for detention in a youth justice centre. You are judged suitable for such an order but, of course, that is not the end of the matter. I have to consider then whether such an order is open to me given the seriousness of your crimes, and I have been reflecting on that over the course of the weekend just gone, and have read the assessment report in some detail.
3 The aggravated burglary was a burglary with an intent to assault. The feature of aggravation was the presence of a person within the premises that you entered, and your awareness (or recklessness) as to that fact. Hence it is an aggravated burglary.
4 The maximum penalty for aggravated burglary is 25 years imprisonment; the maximum penalty for the recklessly causing injury is five years. As to the possession of cannabis, as it appears to be a small quantity and unconnected to any purpose related to trafficking, there is a maximum monetary penalty of five penalty units. The Bail Act offence carries a three-month maximum term of imprisonment.
Facts
5 On 3 August, the prosecutor, Ms Foot, opened this matter to me in accordance with a written prosecution opening that was dated 10 July 2018. Your Counsel, Ms Clark, said that this was an agreed statement of facts. I will not stray beyond those agreed facts. I see no need to describe the full factual setting in these, my reasons. I will incorporate the agreed summary, which is Exhibit A, into my sentencing remarks. Plainly, as was conceded, this was serious offending. Stated very briefly, you were one of four offenders who entered residential premises as trespassers in the early hours of the morning. The premises were in Forest Hill, it was 12.25 am or thereabouts, and a number of people were inside the premises; six people of varying ages. Your group banged and kicked on the front door, and objects were thrown through two windows. You then forced your way into the house when one of the occupants opened the door slightly to investigate the disturbance. The summary then sets out what then occurred; it was mayhem. An object thrown by one of your offsiders struck one of the female occupants causing a laceration and wobbly tooth. Ultimately, she was taken to hospital for treatment. Other occupants fled from the house in terror. It was a relatively short entry and concluded with the four intruders, of which you were one, leaving. There was nothing said in the course of the entry suggesting the existence of any grievance or in any way explaining the entry. Who knows why you were there? There are theories advanced but that is all they are and none of them would be of any great mitigatory value, even if established on the balance of probabilities, which they are not.
6 You were recognised by one of the occupants. You were on three sets of bail as well as on two community corrections orders at the time of this serious offending. You were arrested the next day, on 4 January 2018, and a search at your home disclosed the three cannabis plants, the subject of Charge 3 on the indictment. You denied the offending when interviewed.
7 Despite those denials, you pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. You spent 16 days in custody, and you were granted bail on 19 January this year. Of course I returned you to custody on the day of the plea, and there are some outstanding matters waiting in the wings by way of consolidated plea, listed on 30 August in the Magistrates' Court.
Impact
8 Your victims have chosen not to make impact statements, which of course is their right. I really do not need an impact statement to know that this was a deeply frightening event to those inside the house. It was a violent joint trespass into someone’s home at night, and the summary describes people fleeing in terror. Exhibit A also, of course, contains the photographs of injuries caused to the victim, the subject of Charge 2. She had to be treated at hospital. I take the impact of your crimes into account. The crime of aggravated burglary is notorious for eroding people’s sense of safety in their own home. From the reports placed before me, as well as the recent assessment placed before me, you recognise that your crimes have caused impact, and recognition of that fact is a good thing actually.
Mitigation
9 Your counsel, Ms Clark, raised a number of matters in mitigation on the last date, in an excellent plea conducted on your behalf. She prepared an equally excellent written outline and chronology that was marked as Exhibit 1 on the plea. She relied primarily upon:
· Your early guilty plea;
· The presence of remorse;
· Your complicated behavioural/personality/mental health issues;
· The presence of continued family support;
· Your youth;
· She made submissions as to the seriousness of the offending, and the absence of one aggravating feature being the presence of any weapon;
· She relied upon a report from Mr Cummins, reports from Eastern Health and Dr McNeill, as well as a letter from your uncle. She submitted that you had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation and that they should still be the subject of focus despite the unimpressive chronology in relation to the offending whilst on two community corrections orders and three sets of bail;
· She conceded the inevitability of confinement in this case but argued that you could be sentenced to a term of detention rather than adult imprisonment.
Prosecution
10 Ms Foot, who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions on the last date, agreed that incarceration was required here, and conceded that it would be open for the court to deal with you by way of a youth justice centre order. I am not bound by any submission made to me, either by your own counsel or counsel for the prosecution. I called for a report on the day of the plea, and as I have said, that report has been received and says you are suitable for such a disposition. I think as a matter of formality I will have that report, though it is not a Crown exhibit, I have marked as Exhibit B on the plea. The question then for me, is whether it is open to impose such an order given the gravity of this offending? I will return to that issue later in these reasons.
Guilty plea
11 Let me turn firstly though to some of these matters raised in mitigation by your counsel, Ms Clark. You have pleaded guilty and at the earliest opportunity, and of course that is very important. I take those matters into account in mitigation of sentence. You have taken early responsibility for your offending. Many do not. Witnesses have been spared the experience of coming to court to give evidence. That can be a distressing experience coming to court and giving evidence, and reliving the crime. Well, they have been spared that experience. The community has been saved the time, cost and the effort associated with the conduct of a committal hearing in the Magistrates' Court or a trial up in this court. You have in these ways facilitated the course of justice, and I reward you for your decision to plead guilty and at the early stage which you did, and for taking responsibility in the way that you did. I must pass a lesser sentence upon you than I would have imposed, had you been found guilty by a jury. I will disclose to you the dimensions of the discount that you have received later in these reasons.
Remorse
12 As to remorse, well, you have pleaded guilty, and you have done that at the earliest stage. But you have also expressed shame and remorse in your discussions with others. You are certainly not sitting down there revelling in this offending. I am, in fact, prepared to find that you do feel remorse for the crimes you have committed, and for the impact that you know you have caused to your victims. You recognise the damage that has been caused.
Background
13 I turn now to your background. I am not going to work my way through every detail of your background. These reasons will be long enough already. I get a very decent picture of your background from the written outline placed before me. Then I have the report of Mr Cummins and the other expert materials placed before me. I have no reason to doubt any of this material. Indeed, I accept the background placed before the court. The reports, particularly from Dr McNeill are most instructive, charting as they do, treatment at his hands from when you were a very little boy, a toddler of about three years of age, right up to the age of 17 or so. You had very significant learning and behavioural issues from a very young age, and those things plagued you throughout your schooling and beyond, it would seem. You were bullied at school and often expelled or suspended. You went to many schools, including special schools on occasions. In your adolescence, your mother had her own very significant mental health issues with a number of suicide attempts. That of course was not easy for you or for your family. Happily they have abated to some extent. You left school then with very little grounding and unsurprisingly your work history has been poor. Drugs have been a massive issue for some years, and so, too, alcohol abuse.
14 You have a criminal record and I cannot ignore that. It is conceded to be of some relevance to my task. By my reckoning, five appearances in the Children's Court and two in the adult court, appearances for assaults, dishonesty offending and street type offences, if I can use that term. You seem at least to have complied with some Children's Court probation orders, and the recent youth justice centre assessment comments on your progress on those orders. It was not total compliance, but it was pretty substantial such that you actually avoided breach proceedings being initiated. You received a community corrections order in July 2017, breached that with a large range of offences, and went back to Court, and that order was confirmed in September of that same year. You also received a new community corrections order for the fresh offences on that same day. It follows then that you were on two community corrections orders at the time of this offending. You were also on three sets of bail for a variety of offending pre-dating the current offence. Those matters occurred in August and September 2017, and included a charge of robbery. I mention these matters only, as I am told that you are pleading guilty to a variety of offences, at a consolidated Magistrates' Court plea on 30 August of this year. Since being bailed on the matters for which I must pass sentence, I was told by your counsel that you committed one theft from a shop. Of course, the criminal history is clearly relevant to my task, but you are still very young, and there is nothing in that criminal history suggesting to me that you are beyond hope; far from it in fact.
Youth
15 On that score, I do take into account the many authorities dealing with the importance of youth in the sentencing exercise cases, such as Mills and Azzopardi. Despite your criminal history and the failure to abide by orders imposed in the Magistrates' Court, you are still very young and your history is not too long. Youth and your rehabilitation, therefore, are still very important considerations. Of course, there are other sentencing considerations, you know that. They must be given weight and that much is conceded by your counsel. But the authorities suggest that there can and should be some moderation of some of the other sentencing purposes. Purposes which undoubtedly would be given far greater emphasis in the case of an older or more seasoned offender. What we know is that young people are not fully developed. They are prone to act without regard to the consequences of their actions. They are more impulsive and are for a range of reasons, therefore, regarded generally as less culpable. They are also more amenable to change for the better. Generally, they are more susceptible to a process of corruption occurring in a prison, or even in a confinement setting. It should not be forgotten that the best protection to be achieved for the community is if you are actually rehabilitated and led away from offending. That is why rehabilitation is given such a premium when dealing with young offenders, even those such as you with some criminal history. Of course, every case is very different and it is fair to say that the more serious the offending, the greater the need there is to reflect other sentencing purposes, such as punishment, deterrence and community protection. This is undoubtedly serious offending but your youth and rehabilitation is still very important, and demands appropriate recognition in my view.
Rehabilitation
16 I turn then to your prospects of rehabilitation. Your counsel argues that you have reasonable prospects but that you need structure and treatment. She argues that prison would be counterproductive to your ultimate rehabilitation. What then do I make of your prospects? It is a bit hard for me to know. It is probably a bit hard for you to know yourself, what the future holds. This was serious offending occurring whilst on bail and whilst on community corrections orders. You still have strong support from your family who have been present at Court and, of course, that's a plus. I am not sure if you necessarily appreciate that; some people sit down where you sit with not one bit of support in the world. Well, of course, that is not your position. There was also a very impressive letter from your uncle, marked as Exhibit 5. I am certainly not going to write you off; far from it. You are still young and though your recent efforts have not been impressive in offending on bail, and on the community corrections orders, you took some tentative steps in the right direction on the CISP bail arrangement, and whilst living with your uncle for a short period of time. You took early responsibility for your offending and you speak with a level of insight and empathy for your victims in your discussions with Mr Cummins and the youth justice centre assessment officer. You are remorseful. You have hopes of working in carpentry in the future. Maybe your uncle can assist in that regard upon your ultimate release. I hope he can and I hope that you can find your way into a meaningful life in the future.
17 Now, I have not descended to the detail of all of the expert material placed before me and I do not intend to. There was the report from Mr Cummins, the report from Eastern health, and the many reports from your paediatrician, Dr McNeill. Also, the assessment report placed before me as to suitability for detention in a youth justice centre. Ms Clark explicitly disavowed any reliance upon any of the principles from the Court of Appeal decision of R v Verdins. She abandoned paragraph 32 of her written submission. As you may know, maybe you have forgotten, but I took this case out of the reserve list on the day of the plea in early August. I had only a period of about 15 or 20 minutes to read all of the depositional material and all of the defence materials filed on the plea. I did my best in that limited time frame, but of course, it was a hurried exercise. As I hope I have made plain enough, those materials, especially the reports which I have now read in a much more detailed fashion, are of great use to me. They spell out your background, your personality and the health and mental health concerns in detail. They spell out also, and it would be my judgment, your vulnerability and immaturity. Mr Cummins does not note current symptoms consistent with some of the previous diagnosis. But there is no particular need for me to be positively satisfied as to the accuracy of the tags or diagnostic labels previously attaching your conditions, though I would attach greater weight to Dr McNeill’s views. After all he treated you for many years. You seemingly are functioning at a quite low level, you always have, though the past IQ assessment has been judged not to be valid. The fact is though, that from a reading of Dr McNeill's materials, they catalogue the existence of documented ongoing issues of real significance from a very early age. These are not matters invented on the plea. You have plainly had enormous problems in your developmental years and into adolescence and beyond. Those issues are picked up and commented on in the recent assessment report. I take into account, as far as I am permitted to, that level of disadvantage that has flowed to you in your life. Life has not been easy for you at all.
18 You are seemingly open to treatment, so says Mr Cummins and the assessment officer. You pleasantly surprised and impressed your uncle and aunt, in the brief period that you stayed with them. Well, of course it is a long road ahead for you but you are not too old to change your ways; you are still a very young man with real capacity to change. You seemingly do not have any deep-seated psychological issues that would impede your prospects such as may be posed, for instance, by someone with an anti-social personality disorder. My sentence will serve a role in deterring you from offending in the future. I am prepared to find that you do have quite reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, if and it is if, you can abstain from the use of drugs and the abuse of alcohol, avoid contact with those who use drugs and obtain meaningful treatment. You need to do all those things, you also need what everyone needs, activity and a job. Those sorts of things will raise your self-esteem and occupy your time. If you continue to use drugs, your prospects of rehabilitation will plummet. It is that simple.
19 I take into account all of the written material that has been placed before me, as well as the oral submissions of your counsel.
The Offences
20 As to the offences themselves, your counsel conceded that the aggravated burglary was serious offending but argued that it was not in the most serious category given the absence of a weapon upon entry. The absence of a weapon is not a matter in mitigation. It is simply the absence of one feature of significant aggravation that often enough exists.
21 I accept that there are often more serious instances of aggravated burglary coming before the courts. This one was, however, a very long way removed from the least serious examples of the offence. How does one assess the gravity of such an offence? In the case of Meyers, a number of considerations were set out by the Court of Appeal. Though obviously they are not exhaustive, they include the intent upon entry, the mode of entry, whether a weapon was carried, whether the offender was alone or in company, the time of the day, what the offender knew about who would be inside, and whether the offender was someone of whom the victim was particularly frightened. Well, you were in company with three other intruders. There must have been some premeditation. This was not a silent entry. It involved breaking windows and then pushing through the door when it was opened. You entered intending to assault and knew occupants were within the premises. It was in the early hours. It is impossible for me to know why you were engaged in such an entry, you either cannot or will not say. I do not know which, and it does not actually matter. I do not accept the vague theories placed before me as to this involving some retaliation for threats issued against or conduct against your brother. I am not satisfied of that on the balance of probabilities. What I do know, is that you entered in company intending to assault. In my assessment, your crime is well above the lowest examples of the offence of aggravated burglary. I accept that though there must have been some planning, it cannot have been too detailed as you were not even disguised, and you were recognised.
22 It is always a serious offence to enter another person's premises as a trespasser, which is what you did. You intended to assault and you were in company, and this sort of offending is inherently dangerous. It is difficult to ever predict the end outcome. How can you? How can you know in advance how many are within the house, and how those who are inside the premises might react to such a violent and fluid situation? Or for that matter, how those you are jointly acting with, may act. That is surely spelt out by your being held criminally responsible at law for the conduct of one of those you entered with who caused injury to one of the female occupants. Aggravated burglaries can and do escalate wildly out of control, this was undoubtedly very serious offending.
23 Not every aggravated burglary leads into other offending within the premises. Some do and some do not. Well yours did. You entered with others. You intended to assault, and Ms Berry was struck in the face by a piece of shelving thrown by one of your offsiders. Of course, you are criminally responsible for that act, that is an act of recklessly causing injury, occurring in the early hours of the morning in her own home. It would seem that the injury was not of a long-term nature but still it required medical investigation and treatment on the day. I have for good reason scarcely mentioned the possession of the drugs the following day, it is offending at an altogether lower level. You were on bail at the time of all of this offending as well as on two other court orders, being the two community corrections orders.
Purposes
24 I turn then to the purposes of sentencing. I have to consider a number of purposes of sentencing. They are not limited only to looking at your prospects of rehabilitation or of what is best for you. If all I had to do was consider your prospects of rehabilitation, well sentencing would be very easy.
25 Your counsel accepts that weight must be given to specific and general deterrence, to protection of the community, to denunciation and to punishment. She argues that these matters should not swamp any consideration of your rehabilitation, which she argues is still of real importance given your youth. Well, there is no question that she is right in making that submission, and I accept it. I believe that I can moderate some of the other purposes of sentencing given your youth and the undoubted added emphasis on your rehabilitation owing to your age. However, I cannot just ignore these other purposes of sentencing. I am required to impose a just and proportionate sentence in relation to your offending. You must be punished. I must denounce your conduct and I do, and again that is an important consideration because this was serious offending.
26 There are other purposes of sentencing and one of those is the need for this court to seek to discourage or deter you from offending in the future. I clearly must give that principle of specific deterrence some weight in my task, given the nature of your offending, your criminal history, and given that it occurred whilst on bail, and on the two community corrections orders.
27 I must also give some limited weight to protection of the community from you.
28 General deterrence is another consideration I must have regard to, and it's a significant sentencing purpose in this case, and that is so despite your youth. This court must send a loud and very clear message to other individuals in the community, people who might be minded to commit this sort of serious and illegal entry into another person's home. Such conduct will not be tolerated by the courts, and the message must be sent that it will almost inevitably be met with a sizeable term of confinement either in a youth justice facility, or far more likely, in an adult prison. That is owing to the serious nature of aggravated burglary, a fact which has been spelt out by the State's highest court, time and time again over the last decade. It is a fact also borne out in the sentencing statistics maintained by the Sentencing Advisory Council.
29 I must pay regard to current sentencing practices, though it is not a single controlling factor. I have looked at the Sentencing Advisory Council's Snapshot No.211 of June of this year, for the offence of aggravated burglary. Now, statistical material always has limitations. It says nothing at all about the individual features of the offence or of the offender. But the most common sentence imposed involving confinement for this crime, fell between three and four years. The average sentence involving confinement rose to three years and three months in the year 2016/2017. I have looked also at the Judicial College of Victoria sentencing manual dealing with an overview of aggravated burglary sentences, and I have looked also at the case of Hogarth. That case provides guidance in relation to sentencing for the crime of aggravated burglary, and included a large table of cases. It commented on the seriousness of confrontational aggravated burglary. Yours was a confrontational aggravated burglary.
30 That decision and many decisions since, including the case of Whiteford [2016] VSCA 26, make clear how seriously confrontational aggravated burglaries are to be viewed. See also the case of Maslen [2018] VSCA 90 and the less recent case of Bowden [2016] VSCA 283.
31 You committed a confrontational aggravated burglary in company with others. It was very serious offending. Your counsel argues that it would be open to place you into a youth justice facility.
32 Now a Court cannot impose a youth justice centre order without calling for an assessment and then being satisfied of one of the grounds set out in section 32(1) (a) or (b) of the Sentencing Act, that is, either the existence of rehabilitative prospects or impressionability, to use the short hand.
33 You are assessed as being suitable for such an order; Exhibit B tells me as much. That does not provide the answer to the ultimate sentence. I have to then consider whether it is open to pass such a sentence. There is a ceiling of four years here as your offences occurred after 30 November 2017. prior to that there was a three year ceiling in play.
34 Your offending demands that you be confined for a sizeable period. There is just no question about that, and your counsel concedes as much. The question then is where are you to be confined, an adult prison or a youth justice facility? They are the choices. They are pretty stark. I believe you have quite realistic prospects of rehabilitation in the future. I sense that adult prison would probably reduce those prospects. Of course, that would be a bad outcome for you but also a bad outcome for the community. Well sometimes a Court has no choice, but I believe it is open here to avoid further exposure to adult prison in your case. My assessment of you having realistic prospects of rehabilitation, that alone would justify this step. That is before even factoring in your youth and susceptibility to the corruptive influences which abound in adult institutions. You are immature. I think you are impressionable, and I believe quite vulnerable to significant corruption in an adult prison. You fear adult prison, and that is not a bad thing at all. The assessment report says these things and there is support for this view in the other expert materials placed before me.
35 I believe it is open to sentence you to a youth justice centre disposition. Such an order can, in my judgment, achieve the various sentencing purposes in this case whilst at the same time maximizing your chances of rehabilitation.
Totality
36 I have taken into account the principle of totality. There is obviously a relationship between three of the four offences before me. You were on bail at the time you committed the aggravated burglary, and that then led on to the recklessly causing injury. I accept that there can be substantial concurrency employed here, however, I cannot lose sight of the fact that the recklessly causing injury was a separate offence with separate elements, conduct and of course impact. In its own right it was serious enough, though I do pay regard to the nature of your criminal responsibility here, that is, criminal liability for the actions of one of your offsiders.
37 I have engaged in a last look at the sentences imposed by the court, and the total effect of them in endeavouring to guard against the imposition of a crushing sentence upon you.
Section 464 ZF
38 I have been requested to make a forensic sample order, that application is not opposed and I pronounce the order in the terms in which it is sought. So what we are dealing with here is, I am organising a scraping from your mouth, I am not authorising a blood sample. I am satisfied it is appropriate to make the order that it is in the public interest, owing to the seriousness of the offending, the existence of your prior convictions and the fact that the order is by consent or not opposed. I judge it to be in the public interest to authorise the taking of the scraping from your mouth. Notwithstanding your present non-opposition to the order, at the relevant time when someone comes to take that sample, they can use reasonable force to obtain the mouth scraping. No doubt of course, if that presented difficulties the authorities would be back before me and making application for a blood sample, which to this point I have not authorised. In any event, I have signed that order and I order that you undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a scrapping from your mouth pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act.
Disposal order
39 Secondly, there is application for a disposal order. That pertains to the cannabis and a pair of tracksuit pants for whatever reason. Again though, there is no opposition to the making of that order. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make that order and I order pursuant to s.78 of the Confiscations Act, the forfeiture of the State of the property referred to in that schedule and I have signed that document.
Sentence
40 Mr Bersey can you stand up please?
41 On the charge of aggravated burglary, so that is Charge 1 on the indictment, I convict and sentence you to 24 months detention in a youth justice centre. So two years, that is the base sentence obviously.
42 On the second charge, that is recklessly causing injury, I convict and sentence you to 8 months detention in a youth justice centre.
43 On the third charge on the indictment, that is possession of cannabis, I simply convict and fine you $250.
44 On the summary offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, I convict and sentence you to seven days imprisonment.
Cumulation
45 I direct then that two months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, that is the recklessly causing injury sentence, is to be served cumulatively, that is on top of the base sentence. The seven day term imposed on the summary offence, will be served concurrently with the base sentence and other sentences imposed this day.
Total effective sentence
46 So what that results in, is a total effective sentence of two years and two months or 26 months detention in a youth justice centre, all right.
Pre-Sentence Detention
47 When I last saw you, there was a period of 16 days pre-sentence detention to that point to declare. Of course that's risen because I remanded you in custody on 3 August, and the total period including that earlier 16 day period, now stands at 40 days. You get credit for that full period. You have already served 40 days of the sentence and that declaration of 40 days is to be noted in the records of the court, pursuant to s. 35 of the Sentencing Act.
Section 6AAA
48 I have told you that I have taken into account your guilty plea. I have. Had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty by a jury, I would have imposed a far greater sentence. Let me disclose the extent of the discount you have received. Such sentencing after a trial likely would have occurred well after you had turned 21. That itself would have ruled out altogether any consideration of a youth justice detention order, as youth justice detention cannot be imposed if the offender is 21 years of age or older, at the time of sentence. Even had you still been eligible for such a disposition, there would simply have been no question of a youth justice centre order being imposed had you run a trial and been convicted. Had you been found guilty of these offences following a trial, I would have convicted and sentenced you to five years imprisonment, I would have fixed a non‑parole period in those circumstances of three years. That section 6AAA declaration, is also to be noted in the records of the court.
49 Have a seat for a moment, please, I will just see if there is anything I have overlooked. Ms Teague, Ms Clark, any other matters I need to deal with at all?
MS TEAGUE: No, Your Honour.
MS CLARK: No, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: No, all right. You will go down and see Mr Bersey downstairs, will you?
MS CLARK: I will, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: All right. All right, well that completes the matter then, Mr Bersey. So Ms Clark will come down and see you downstairs, all right.
MS CLARK: As Your Honour pleases.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, so Mr Bersey can be removed. Thank you.
- - -
3
0