Director of Public Prosecutions v Blake (a pseudonym)
[2021] VCC 1664
•22 October 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JASON BLAKE (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 27 September & 6 October 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 22 October 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Blake (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1664 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal law – Sentence
Catchwords: Indecent act with a child under 16 years – sexual penetration of a child in his care – course of conduct charge – serious example of offence – gross breach of trust – burden of imprisonment – ill health – previous good character - general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation paramount sentencing purpose - totality, partial cumulation of sentences.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958; Sentencing Act 1991; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004
Cases Cited:
Sentence: Six years, six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years, three months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr Bruce Nibbs Mr Michael Thackaberry | Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria |
| For the Accused | Ms Megan Casey (plea and sentence) | Richard Davis & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1Jason Blake[1], you have been convicted by a jury of one charge of wilfully committing an indecent act with a child under 16 contrary to s47 of the Crimes Act 1958 (‘the Act’) (charge 1), which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and one charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years contrary to s 45(1) of the Act (charge 2). You were acquitted of charge 3.
[1] A pseudonym.
2
Charge 2 is a course of conduct charge, involving more than one occasion of sexual penetration of the complainant between 1 January 2015 and
31 March 2017. The jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the sexual penetration constituting charge 2, occurred at times when the complainant was under your care, supervision or authority. Charge 2, in these aggravating circumstances of the offence, carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.
3You were born in October 1971. You commenced a relationship with the complainant’s mother, Angela Roman[2] in 2012. At that time, Ms Roman and her children were living in South Australia. Ms Roman, her son and the complainant, moved to Victoria to live with you in February 2014. At the time of the offending, you were 44 years of age.
[2] A pseudonym.
4The victim of the offences, Kaylee Brunson[3], was born in June 2002. At the time of the offending, she was between 13 and 14 years of age.
[3] A pseudonym.
Circumstances of the offending
5I turn now to the circumstances of the offending.
6In order to place the offending in context, it is first necessary to set out the living arrangements of the family at various times during the relevant period.
7When Ms Roman moved with her children to live with you in Victoria in February 2014, you were working on a dairy farm in near Echuca. During that period, Ms Roman was receiving cancer treatment and you would take her for treatment at Mount Gambier Hospital, and the children would stay with your parents. In late 2014, you became ill with Ross River fever and the family moved to live with your parents and stayed there until Christmas time. You then worked for a brief period in Cobram, followed by employment on a farm in Gippsland. At that time, Kaylee started school nearby.
8
In May 2015, you and Ms Roman purchased a four-bedroom house in
Morwell to renovate. You continued working on the farm and would travel on weekends to work on the house in Morwell. You would often take Kaylee with you.
9
You were promoted after working at the farm for a few months, and in
August 2015 the family moved to a property nearby the farm.
10From late 2015, Ms Roman noticed that you were spending a lot of time with Kaylee. At around that time, you told Ms Roman that Kaylee was self-harming. You told Ms Roman that Kaylee ‘despised her’[4]. At one point, Kaylee scratched the words, ‘You said you loved me[5]’ into her arm. You and Ms Roman argued because you would not tell her why Kaylee was self-harming[6].
[4]T53, L21
[5]T55, L6
[6]T53, L30
11In late January 2016, you told Ms Roman’s son to leave the house at the farm due to an incident between him and his mother. Following this, your relationship with Ms Roman ended and she moved into the Morwell house with her son. Kaylee remained with you at the house near the farm.
12Sometime later, Ms Roman was employed at another farm on a separate property. From that time, Kaylee lived between you and Ms Roman, travelling by bus to stay with you on weekends, sometimes longer. This continued until Ms Roman lost her job on the farm in March 2016 at which time Ms Roman and Kaylee returned to live with you at the house at the farm, in separate bedrooms. As you refused to live with Ms Roman’s son, he moved to live in Geelong and did not return to live with you at the farm.
13
At some point, you suggested to Ms Roman that Kaylee should be given birth control measures. You told Ms Roman that Kaylee was getting to the age where she was becoming sexually active. Kaylee was either 13 or 14 at the time.
Ms Roman agreed, and arranged for Kaylee to receive a rod implant.
14In April 2016, you resigned from your position at the farm. You, Ms Roman and Kaylee then moved into the property in Morwell. The three of you slept in separate bedrooms. During this period, Kaylee was not attending school.
15In August 2016, you secured a job with a dairy farm. Kaylee moved there with you, in order to continue her schooling nearby. Ms Roman travelled to South Australia, Tasmania and subsequently returned to live in Morwell. After approximately two to three months, Kaylee returned to live with her mother in Morwell, towards the end of the school year. In March 2017, Kaylee returned with her mother and brother to live in South Australia.
Charge 1 – Indecent act with a child under 16
16I turn now to the first instance of offending, which constitutes charge 1.
17In 2016, Kaylee was alone with you in the house at Morwell. At that time, she was between 13-14 years old[7]. Ms Roman was not present following an argument with you. You had been drinking. Kaylee was standing by the fireplace in the lounge. You approached her and gave her a hug. You then tried to kiss her on the lips, but she moved her face away. At this point, she says she says she “freaked out”[8] and did not know what to do. She moved away from you.
[7]T23, L46
[8]VARE, A25
18You then asked Kaylee, ‘Would it be so bad if you came in my bed and hugged me?’ Kaylee then went into your bedroom and lay on the mattress with you, in a spooning position. You then grabbed her hand and placed it on your penis. She kept moving your hand and said ‘No’ but you continued to put her hand on your penis. This is the conduct giving rise to Charge 1 – indecent act with a child under 16.
19
On the same day, or the following day, you had lunch with the Kaylee at a local pub where you purchased condoms. You then returned to the house in
with her. Later that day, you asked Kaylee again if she wanted to go to the bedroom and cuddle[9]. You told her, ‘Everything was going to be okay, and that the first time should be special'[10].
20You put the condom on your penis, pulled Kaylee’s pants down and then inserted your penis into her vagina, while you were on top of her[11]. This is the first instance of the offence of sexual penetration of a child under child under 16. It forms one instance of the course of conduct constituting charge 2. Kaylee told you to stop. You only did so after she had told you to stop a few times[12]. After you stopped, Kaylee lay there. She says she did not know what to do. You asked her ‘what she wanted you to be to her?’ Kaylee told you she just wanted you to be a father to her. You replied, ‘Okay, I can be your father.'[13]
21You told Kaylee that if she told anyone that you would go to gaol[14]. At some stage, you sent Kaylee text messages, in which you wrote:
'Ya mother can’t fuck up what we have beautiful/ ever.'
'We get 5 nights together beautiful/ can’t wait to catch up again',
'I love YOU, don’t forget it beautiful'.
[9]T29, L88
[10]T20, L17 and T28, L83
[11]T29, L91 and T31, L104-109
[12]T29, L91
[13]T30, L95
[14]T32, L114
Charge 2 – course of conduct charge
22I turn now to discuss the findings I am able to make in respect of charge 2.
23A finding of guilt on the course of conduct charge does not allow me to infer that the jury accepted all the evidence. The jury may have reached their verdict by relying on different incidents. There is no requirement for them to unanimously agree on the incidents that prove the course of conduct charge. However, each juror must have been satisfied that the incidents of sexual penetration they found occurred amounted to a course of conduct.
24Pursuant to s5(2F) of the Sentencing Act [1991], I must impose a sentence that reflects the totality of the offending that constitutes the course of conduct. It is my role as the sentencing judge to determine the course of conduct in which you engaged and by reference to which you are to be sentenced[15].
[15]See Note to section 5(2F) of the Sentencing Act 1991
25At the plea hearing, both parties made submissions on the questions of what finding I should make.
On your behalf, Ms Casey submitted that the prosecution could not establish to the requisite degree, that the offending took place at the property in Morwell between the dates of 1 January 2015 and
31 March 2017, being the dates charged. Ms Casey outlined a number of matters in support of this submission.
26
Firstly, the evidence establishes that the property was not purchased until
May 2015. Secondly, Kaylee’s evidence was that the first occasion she was sexually penetrated occurred when she was lying on the couch at the
Morwell property when you asked, “Would it be bad if you came in my bed and hugged me?”[16] Kaylee gave evidence that you bought condoms the next day and then sexually penetrated her vagina with your penis that night. However, there is other evidence, including the evidence of Ms Roman[17], that there was no couch at the Morwell property until you moved in with Ms Roman and Kaylee in
April 2016. Further, it is agreed that you moved out to live at the diary in August 2016. These dates were not disputed in the evidence led at trial.
27
Given that evidence, the prosecution accepts and I find, that the offending could only have occurred at the Morwell property between the dates of April 2016 and August 2016. Between those dates, the complainant was 13 and turning
14 years of age[18].
[16]VARE, A14
[17]T73, L13-31
[18]Having turned 14 in June 2016
28As to the frequency of the offending, the complainant’s evidence was that it occurred:
·“Not every day, but basically most days”[19];
·that “it happened other times”[20];
·that she couldn’t recall the last time because “you had messed with her head”[21]; and
·that it had happened before and after the rod was put in.[22]
[19]VARE, A277
[20]VARE, A177
[21]VARE, A276
[22]VARE, A271-275
29The prosecution submits that I can be satisfied, you sexually penetrated Kaylee regularly and certainly on more than two occasions.
30Ms Casey submits that no such finding is open. Ms Casey’s submissions highlighted that when Kaylee was questioned in her VARE about it happening on other times at Morwell, she said 'I don’t really remember, but I know when Mum used to go to the shops, he used to, like, do the same thing.'However, when she was asked what she meant by 'just the same thing', the complainant then described the conduct that formed the basis of the third charge, of which you were acquitted by the jury[23].
[23]VARE, A208
31Further, Ms Casey also pointed to Kaylee’s evidence in the VARE when she was asked about saying “it happened not every day but basically most days” and said that it was only when she was alone with you in the house at Morwell, and that it stopped when her mother moved back in[24].
[24]VARE, A289-290
32The role of a trial judge in interpreting the jury’s verdict for the purposes of sentence is clear[25].
I must be satisfied to the criminal standard as to the conduct that constitutes charge 2. However, there is no requirement to make a finding as to the actual number of times the offending occurred. This is clear from
Schedule 1, clause 4A(10) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, which states it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove any particular number of incidents of the offence. Course of conduct charges permit the charging of more than one incident in circumstances where a complainant, as here, in unable to distinguish one act of abuse from another, given the repeated nature of the offending[26].
[25]Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1
[26]Harlow (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2018] VSCA 234
33In this case, I have had regard to Kaylee’s evidence that the offending by sexual penetration occurred 'Not every day but basically most days'. However, this evidence must be considered and weighed in light of the entirety of her evidence, and that of the other witnesses. Without being in any way critical of Kaylee, her evidence on this issue is unclear, and at times contradictory. As Kaylee stated, she found it difficult to recall when the last occasion occurred, because you had “messed with her head”. There was never a time Kaylee lived at the Morwell property alone with you. There were periods when you and Kaylee stayed overnight at the property and her mother was not present when it was being renovated, but that was prior to April 2016. Her evidence of it happening on other occasions, when questioned about this in her VARE, was clearly referrable to the conduct of which you were acquitted.
34Based on the foregoing, I cannot be satisfied to the requisite standard that you sexually penetrated Kaylee regularly and on more than the two occasions during the period of April 2016 to August 2016. There is no rational basis, based on the evidence, that I can make such a finding. Accordingly, I can only be satisfied, consistent with the jury verdict on charge 2, that you sexually penetrated Kaylee by introducing your penis into her vagina on two occasions at the Morwell property between April 2016 and August 2016.
Victim impact
35I turn now to discuss the impact of your offending on the victims.
36The offending has had a profound impact on Kaylee. Tellingly, in her victim impact statement, Kaylee says her life used to be normal, but now it is ‘in pieces’. She speaks of feelings of anger, sadness and of suffering from depression and anxiety. She struggles with sleep. She says your offending has driven a wedge between members of her family, and she now worries about the impact on her mother. She feels isolated, and has difficulty trusting people and in forming friendships.
37
Naturally, your offending has also had a devastating impact on Kaylee’s mother, Ms Roman. Although Ms Roman bears no responsibility for your conduct, she says she feels guilty that she could not protect her daughter. She blames herself for failing to pick up 'the signs’. Her sense of responsibility leaves her angry and feeling that she has failed as a mother. She states the pain caused by your offending has been enormous, leaving her both physically and mentally ill.
Ms Roman says your offending has had a detrimental impact on her relationship with both her children, again believing they blame her for your conduct. She can no longer trust people and constantly ruminates about the safety of her children.
38It is clear from the victim impact statements that your offending has had devastating consequences for the victims. That impact is an important consideration to be weighed in the formulation of your sentence.
Gravity of offending
39I turn now to discuss the nature and gravity of your offending.
40Sexual offending against children is inherently serious. Your offending was a gross breach of trust. Kaylee was only 13-14 years old and looked up to you, a much older man, as a father figure. You were supposed to care and protect her. This is especially so as you were aware of her vulnerability. At the age of 13, Kaylee had experienced a lot of trauma. Her father had committed suicide in terrible circumstances, her brother had developed an ice addiction and her relationship with her mother was fractious. She was being bullied at school.
41It was in this context that Kaylee came to spend more time with you and trusted you. Kaylee wanted to be with you because you made her feel special and loved. She would confide in you. By your offending, you exploited her trust and innocence for your own sexual gratification. On the one hand, you were a father figure, but on the other hand, you were sexually abusing her in ways she did not like. This is sadly illustrated by the fact that following the first incident of sexual penetration, when you asked Kaylee what she wanted you to be to her, she replied, 'A father'.
42The incidents of sexual penetration, following the indecent act, are extremely serious. The sexual penetration of a child is an inherently violent offence. Although one maximum penalty applies in relation to charge 2, the sentence I impose must reflect the fact that this is a course of conduct charge encompassing two separate occasions of sexual penetration. Moreover, the first instance of sexual penetration was aggravated by the fact you persisted with your offending, despite Kaylee pleading with you to stop. The finding of the jury that you were in a position of care, supervision or authority at the time of the two instances of penetrative offending is also an aggravating feature and demonstrates the fundamental breach of the trust Kaylee and also her mother, reposed in you.
Personal circumstances
43I turn now to your personal circumstances.
44You are now 49 years old, having been born in October 1971.
45
You were born and raised in Victoria, with an older sister and two younger brothers. Another sibling, an older brother, died from cot death. You remain close to your parents, and to your siblings. Your younger brother has an acquired brain injury following a car accident when he was approximately
10 years old. You have played a significant role in his life. Growing up, your mother’s sister also lived on the same property, so you grew up close to your cousins and extended family.
46You completed Year 11 at Craigieburn High School and then completed three terms of Year 12 at Coburg Technical College to undertake an apprenticeship as a chef.
47You have a limited prior history for offences dating back to when you were in your early 20s. Your first prior is from 1993 for cultivating, possessing and using cannabis. The other prior is from 1994 for one charge of unlawful assault. You received a good behaviour bond on both occasions. I accept these priors are of little, if any relevance to the sentence I am to impose for this sexual offending.
48You have had four significant relationships with age-appropriate partners. Your first relationship lasted for 20 years, and you have two adult children with your former wife. That relationship deteriorated due to the stress caused by the financial collapse of the family business after 14 years of drought, followed by two years of flooding. After another relationship, you then met Angela Roman. For the last three years you have been in a stable relationship with another woman, who works as a registered nurse.
49You have an excellent employment history. After working during school holidays, you worked in trades and then, in landscaping and renovation work with your cousin. In the late 90s while married, you ran two family businesses, one in landscaping and the other operating a supermarket trolley collection service. Your businesses suffered as a consequence of issues with the tax office, which you attribute to the failure of your accountant, who had been a family friend.
50In 2002, you commenced working in the dairy industry, while also working as a truck driver. You remained continuously employed in this industry, working your way up to management roles. You brought a strong work ethic to this occupation, and were motivated by your concern for the welfare of both the animals and farm staff.
51
You had a number of health issues since 2014, most particularly since 2020. In 2014, you were diagnosed with Ross River fever requiring you to return to live with your parents. You experience ongoing difficulty with cramps, although the precise cause has not been determined. In September 2020, you became very ill and lost a significant amount of weight. Medical investigations included a gastroscopy, a colonoscopy, a PET scan in Albury, and bronchoscopy to examine your lungs. You were referred to a respiratory lung specialist at
St Vincent’s Hospital to examine a potential diagnosis of lung cancer and/or lymphoma. At that time, you were experiencing difficulties breathing, joint pain, spasms and chills. These investigations continued after you were taken into custody.
52On 30 July 2021, following the jury verdict, you were given a diagnosis of lung cancer. In light of this diagnosis, the plea hearing was adjourned to enable you to obtain updated medical material. However, on 27 August 2021 following further testing, you were informed that the mass detected on your lungs was not cancerous. Although this was a welcome result, this has been a particularly difficult and stressful time for you.
53You continue to have strong family support. All your family members, including your current partner, are aware of your conviction and remain supportive of you. I received a large number of character references on your plea from family and friends, many of whom have known you a long time. Overwhelmingly, these references describe you as kind, considerate, hard-working and compassionate. Your brother describes you as 'A rock when I have been at my lowest'. Both family and friends say this offending is not consistent with the character of the person they know you to be.
54This material is to your credit. I accept that you have made a real difference to the lives of many others in a positive way and have contributed to the community through many years of hard work and this counts in your favour.
55Your parents and your partner demonstrated their support for you by attending the trial and plea hearings. I accept that you have very strong family support and that this will assist you when you re-enter the community.
Other sentencing considerations
56I turn now to other matters.
57Denunciation, just punishment and general deterrence are significant sentencing considerations in this case. In sentencing you, an unequivocal message must be sent that those who commit sexual offences against children in their care should expect to go to gaol for a significant period. The law presumes that children suffer harm as a result of sexual offending. That presumption is borne out by Kaylee’s powerful victim impact statement in this case.
58Against these considerations, Ms Casey submits that a number of factors operate in mitigation of sentence.
59First, there had been significant delay in this matter through no fault of yours. A complaint was first made to police by Angela Roman in January 2018 however, you were not interviewed by police until September 2018. You were not charged until April 2019. A special hearing was conducted in October 2019 and the matter fixed for trial in July 2020 but could not proceed due to the impact of COVID-19 on the conduct of jury trials. Your trial ultimately proceeded one year later, in June and July 2021. I accept the submission that this delay has been a cause of anxiety and worry for you as you have had to live with the uncertainty of the outcome over that period.
60I accept that having these serious charges hanging over your head for over two years not knowing what might happen, entitles you to a moderation in the sentence I impose.
61Secondly, Ms Casey submits that you were a person of prior good character. Until the age of 44, you had been a law abiding, hard-working member of the community. In that context, Ms Casey contends the offending can be characterised as entirely out of character. I accept this submission. You are entitled to the benefit of your prior good character in mitigation, and I make allowance for this in your sentence. However, as the authorities make clear, previous good character carries less weight in mitigation of sentence for sexual offending of this kind.
62It is more difficult to assess your prospects of rehabilitation. A substantial period of delay may provide evidence of rehabilitation, even where an offender pleads not guilty[27]. It is true that you have not reoffended since you were interviewed in September 2018, and I take this into account when assessing your prospects of rehabilitation. However, there have been no positive steps towards rehabilitation during the period since being charged. While your previous good character and absence of any relevant prior criminal history all point to good prospects of rehabilitation, in the face of your ongoing denial of any offending, I cannot conclude your prospects are excellent as submitted on your behalf.
[27]R v Talia [2009] VSCA 260
63Although you have been found guilty of these offences by the jury, you maintain your innocence. This, of course, is not an aggravating feature of your offending. You are not to be punished for exercising your right to run a trial. However, there is no acceptance of responsibility or evidence of remorse to act upon to reduce your sentence. An offender who pleads guilty is entitled to a significant sentencing benefit, and you are not entitled to that benefit or discount.
64Thirdly, Ms Casey submits that for a number of reasons your time in custody has been, and will continue to be, extremely challenging and onerous. This is your first experience of custody. Upon being remanded, you were not provided your prescription medication for a period. Your time in custody has run parallel to the COVID-19 pandemic and as a result, you have experienced two separate periods in isolation, necessitated as a form of quarantine. This includes the time you returned to custody having received the devastating, although ultimately incorrect, cancer diagnosis on 30 July 2021. This would undoubtedly have made your experience of dealing with that diagnosis even more stressful, as you were in isolation in custody. The absence of in-person family visits at this time, would have been particularly difficult for you.
65You have also been assaulted by another prisoner whilst in custody. When you were admitted to St Vincent’s Hospital for an endo-bronchial ultrasound, your belongings and medication were stolen. You have since been relocated to a lodge at Ravenhall, however due to the nature of your offending, you remain a protection prisoner. Additionally, the measures put in place by prison authorities to manage the pandemic, including lockdowns and the suspension of in-person family visits, have all added to the burden of your time in custody. For you, a prisoner with concerning respiratory issues, the risks associated with the pandemic are an additional source of anxiety and stress.
66I accept that your time in custody to date and into the future, is likely to be a difficult and onerous one. This is not only due to the impact of COVID-19 but compounded by your ill-health and personal circumstances. I have taken these matters into account in mitigation of your sentence.
67In relation to your offending, I accept that it was not accompanied by threats of violence or acts of force. Rather, you took advantage of the fact Kaylee loved and trusted you. You must have known that what you were doing was terribly wrong. The offending occurred in Kaylee’s home where she was entitled to be safe. You breached the trust her mother showed in leaving her daughter in your care, believing she was safe. Kaylee was in her early adolescence and was a very vulnerable victim. You manipulated her by telling her to say nothing, or you would go to gaol. The text messages you sent Kaylee are further instances of this manipulation and were completely inappropriate to send to a child of that age.
68Your counsel does not submit that the principles of Verdins are enlivened in your case. Your moral culpability for your offending is high.
69I do accept there should be significant concurrency in the sentence I impose as between Charges 1 and 2, particularly having regard to the sentencing principle of totality. Some degree of cumulation is however warranted to recognise the distinct acts of offending.
70The law requires that I take into account, as one of many factors, current sentencing practices for these offences. I have reviewed the decisions to which I was referred by your counsel for the act of sexual penetration of a child under 16[28]. Whilst every case differs, and some cases here involve sentences imposed after a guilty plea, or where a lower maximum penalty applied, these cases provide some guidance to the sentencing range. I have however, borne in mind that sentencing practice cannot govern or control the sentence imposed[29].
[28]DPP v Allen [2020] VSCA 292; DPP v Watton [2019] VSCA 10; Lyon (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2019] VSCA 251
[29]DPP v Dalgliesh (2017) 262 CLR 428, 434
71Ms Casey submitted that specific deterrence should be moderated in your case, having regard to your personal circumstances, including the absence of relevant criminal history, and your prospects of rehabilitation. I accept that imprisonment will have a significant deterrent effect on your personally, particularly given this is your first experience of custody. I agree that the need for specific deterrence is to be given less weight than the paramount sentencing considerations of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation.
Sentence
72Balancing all relevant sentencing considerations, and having regard to the maximum penalties applicable to the offences, I sentence you as follows:
73
On Charge 1, indecent act with a child under 16, I convict and sentence you to
18 months’ imprisonment.
74On Charge 2, sexual penetration of a child under 16, being a course of conduct charge, I convict and sentence you to six years’ imprisonment.
75I direct that the sentence of six years’ imprisonment imposed on Charge 2 be the base sentence. I direct that six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 2.
76This gives rise to a total effective sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of four years and three months’ imprisonment. This means you will become eligible to apply for parole after serving this non-parole period.
77Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare 109 days that you have served by way of pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as time already served against the sentence I have just imposed.
78As a result of my sentence today, you are to be registered as a sex offender. This is mandatory and the registration period is for life. You will be required to comply with the requirements of the Sex Offenders Registration Act for the rest of your life.
79HER HONOUR: Can I just ask if counsel have any questions in relation to the sentence that I have just imposed?
80MS CASEY: No, Your Honour.
81MR NIBBS: No, Your Honour.
82HER HONOUR: Thank you. Ms Casey the custody management matters have previously been noted, were there any additional matters that you wished me to note?
83MS CASEY: No, Your Honour.
84HER HONOUR: All right. Ms Casey do you want an opportunity to speak to your client now, after I stand down?
85MS CASEY: If I could please, Your Honour.
86HER HONOUR: Certainly. So, I will arrange for that to occur in a confidential way, once I've stood down. If we could adjourn the court thank you.
8
0