Director of Public Prosecutions v Bonnici
[2023] VCC 1285
•27 July 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 23-00711
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| VINCENT BONNICI |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE KELLY | |
WHERE HELD: | La Trobe Valley | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 13 June, 22 June 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 27 July 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bonnici | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1285 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Intentionally cause injury – intentionally damage property – aggravated burglary – Verdins – borderline personality disorder – whether reduction of moral culpability – victim ex-partner.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991.
Cases Cited:Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288; Brown v The Queen 62 VR 491; Cameron v R (2002) 209 CLR 339; Degney v The Queen [2019] VSCA 183; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (A Pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314; Hardwick v The Queen [2021] VSCA 67; Hatzis v The Queen [2021] VSCA 43; Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506; Phillips v The Queen [2012] VSCA 140; R v Duncan [1998] 3 VR 208; R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo (2007) 16 VR 269; Worboyes v The Queen (2021) 96 MVR 344.
Sentence: 3 years’ gaol with a non-parole period of 2 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr Y. Hardjadibrata | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr M. Brugman | Pace and Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Vincent Bonnici, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of causing injury intentionally, two charges of intentionally damaging property, and one charge of aggravated burglary. The maximum penalties for these offences are as follows:
(a) Causing injury intentionally, 10 years' imprisonment
(b) Intentionally damaging property, 10 years' imprisonment
(c) Aggravated burglary, 25 years' imprisonment.
2 Your offending was summarised by the prosecution at your plea.
3 There are multiple victims in this matter:
a) Claire Thompson[1], your former de facto partner of approximately six years. You had three children with Ms Thompson, all of whom were also present during the incident. They were aged 13, six, and two respectively at the time of your offending;
b) Stephanie Ermine[2], who was in a romantic relationship with your brother and whose three children were also present during the incident, and were aged 15, 13, and five respectively at that time; and
c) Elaine Stokes[3], Ms Ermine’s niece, who was staying at the address where the offending occurred.
[1] A pseudonym.
[2] A pseudonym.
[3] A pseudonym.
4 Prior to your offending, you had been separated from Ms Thompson for a period of two weeks, although it appears you still lived with one another.
5 In the evening of 15 October 2022, Ms Thompson and her three children were visiting Ms Ermine at a residential address. The children had spent the day at a cinema and were brought to Ms Ermine’s address for fish and chips while Ms Thompson and Ms Ermine enjoyed some drinks in the back garden. You were not invited to this gathering.
6
At approximately 11 pm, Ms Thompson received a text message from you.
You requested that she come home. She said she would be home soon.
You responded with a message in which you said 'Watching power sharpening that knife'. You sent a further message saying ‘U and [Steph] about to get ya heads caved in by me'. Shortly after midnight, you arrived at the address. You began abusing Ms Ermine from the footpath, yelling at her to come out. Two of the children were outside with Ms Ermine, Ms Thompson and Ms Stokes. Ms Thompson and the children then sought refuge inside the house.
7
Ms Ermine walked outside and confronted you. She said 'Well, here I am.
Cave my fucking head in.’ You were standing on the nature strip and produced a metal pole and said 'You think you're fucking tough?' Ms Ermine turned to run, but you struck her over the back of the head with the pole multiples times.
She managed to flee from you and go back inside. As a result of your attack, she suffered sustained bruising and a three‑centimetre laceration to the back of her head, which was bleeding and required stitches at hospital. This conduct forms the offending under Charge 1, intentionally causing injury.
8 You then smashed Ms Thompson’s nearby vehicle with the pole. You smashed all the windows and caused extensive damage to the panels and lights. The victim was not insured. This conduct forms the offending under Charge 2, criminal damage.
9 Inside the house, Ms Ermine, the children, Ms Thompson hid in the en suite in the master bedroom and locked the door. Whilst inside, the victims could hear you yelling out their names and smashing glass at the front of the house. You used the pole to smash the bedroom window before climbing through, cutting your hands in the process. You then smashed the interior of the house and searched for Ms Thompson and Ms Ermine, leaving a trail of blood behind. This conduct forms the offending under Charge 3, aggravated burglary, and Charge 4, criminal damage.
10 You then went to the en suite door and found it locked, with some of the victims hiding behind it. You used the pole to smash at it, causing damage. You made a hole in it and put your bloodied hand through. Your 13‑year‑old daughter begged you to stop, telling you 'Mum isn't here'. Ms Ermine’s 13‑year‑old daughter attempted to hide Ms Ermine and Ms Thompson while you screamed at her.
11 Ms Stokes then confronted you, telling you to go and trying to get you to leave. You began assaulting her, hitting her in the face. She screamed and fell to the ground, losing consciousness. You continued to assault her, hitting her legs with the pole and causing a two‑centimetre cut inside her mouth, swelling, pain, and red marks. This conduct forms the offending under Charge 5, intentionally cause injury.
12 Police were called, but by the time they arrived you had fled. You were located further down the street, where you were arrested. Police located blood throughout the address on the floors and walls. There was extensive damage to Ms Thompson’s vehicle, damage to the bedroom window and en suite door, and pictures had been knocked off the walls. Ms Stokes and Ms Ermine were assessed by paramedics and transported to hospital for treatment for concussion and lacerations to the head. Located on the nature strip outside the property was a black backpack belonging to you. Underneath it was a kitchen knife. When interviewed by police, you made full admissions.
13
Your counsel, Mr Brugman, acknowledged that this offending was serious and warrants a term of imprisonment. However, he submitted that there were a number of relevant mitigatory circumstances in your case. Relying on the findings made by Ms Sandra Cokorilo in her psychological assessment of you, Mr Brugman argued that your offending occurred in the context of an uncharacteristic psychological episode. It was submitted that this context enlivens the first limb of Verdins such that I should find your moral culpability for the offending is lowered. It was also submitted that a combination of your current psychological state and Ms Cokorilo's diagnoses of major depressive disorder and borderline personality disorder will make incarceration more burdensome for you than the average prisoner, enlivening limb 5 of Verdins.
I will return to these submissions shortly.
14 It was submitted that you have demonstrated genuine remorse and sorrow for your actions and that I should take these expressions of remorse into account. It was submitted that the genuineness of your regret was exemplified by your cooperation with investigating authorities, your pleas of guilty, which were characterised as made at an early stage, and your insistence at the time of your arrest that the victims of your actions had done nothing wrong, nothing to deserve what you had done to them. You were characterised as having a low risk of recidivism and a strong aptitude for rehabilitation. It was accordingly submitted that the appropriate disposition is a combination of imprisonment and a lengthy communication correction order with a therapeutic focus.
15
The prosecution submitted that this kind of offending was objectively serious, warranting a term of imprisonment with a non‑parole period. The prosecution highlighted a number of factors which underscore the seriousness of the conduct grounding the charge of aggravated burglary, including that the entry into the property was forced, committed after midnight, done with the knowledge of children being present in the property, and committed against
Ms Thompson, who had been the victim of your verbal abuse since you had separated. It was also submitted that the fact that you entered the property armed with a metal pole increases the seriousness of this conduct.[4]
[4] Citing DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314 at [48].
16 The prosecution conceded that your plea was an early one with significant utilitarian value. It was also conceded that limb 5 of Verdins is enlivened, although the prosecution resisted the submission that your moral culpability is diminished as a consequence of your dual diagnoses. The prosecution took me to a number of comparable cases to provide examples of current sentencing practices. I will return to these cases later.
17
Ms Thompson provided a victim impact statement to the court.
In it, she describes how your offending has had a significant impact on her life. Since the incident, she has been extremely worried about her safety and that of her children. She no longer feels safe in her own home. She is scared about how this may affect her children and future relationships. She is scared for her life and the lives of her children. After the incident, she had to take unpaid leave from work. She has been unable to return to work given her responsibility to care for her children. She has to rely on an income support payment. She also had to pay a large sum to repair her vehicle, suffering further financial strain. Your attack has fractured family supports and impacted her relationship and her children's relationships with your family. Acting as a sole parent has been exhausting for her.
18 Your offending falls into the mid to high range of seriousness. I note the following features.
(a) The offending was performed against women who were largely defenceless against your attack.
(b) You continued to pursue Ms Ermine even after she had fled from you.
(c) You continued to attack Ms Stokes even once she was on the ground and had lost consciousness.
(d) This occurred with children present, including some of your own.
(e) Whilst the offending was spurred by anger, there was clearly some premeditation considering your text messages to Ms Thompson beforehand and your decision to bring a metal pole and a knife.
19 Your behaviour would have been terrifying for those present, particularly the children.
20 In DPP v Meyers,[5] the Court of Appeal considered the features to be considered in assessing the seriousness of instances of aggravated burglary. The features highlighted were:
[5] [2014] VSCA 314.
(a) the offender's intent at the point of injury (whether to steal or commit assault or cause damage);
(b) the mode of entry;
(c) whether the offender was carrying a weapon;
(d) whether the offender was alone or in company;
(e) the time of day at which the burglary took place;
(f) what the offender knew or believed about who would be inside and where they would be; and
(g) whether the offender was someone of whom the victim was particularly frightened.[6]
[6] Ibid at [48].
21 In this case, your intent at the point of entry was to assault. You broke in and entered through a bedroom window. You were carrying a weapon ‑ the metal pole. You were alone. This took place shortly after midnight. You knew who was inside. You knew that the person you were pursuing, namely Ms Thompson, was there.
22 As to whether you knew the children were present, that might be inferred from the following facts:
(a) It appears that Ms Thompson was still living with you and the children. Thus, presumably, you were aware the children were with her;
(b) Ms Thompson and Ms Ermine regularly met up each second Saturday, in part so that their children could socialise, and you would have been aware of this;
(c) When you arrived at the property, two of the children were outside with Ms Ermine, Ms Thompson, and Ms Stokes.
23 Whether Ms Thompson or any of the victims were particularly frightened of you is unclear, although your behaviour, as I have said, would have been terrifying for anyone present.
24 On the above analysis, this example of aggravated burglary is a serious one. As to your culpability for these offences, I will come to this shortly.
25
Your personal circumstances were summarised in the report of
Ms Sandra Cokorilo tendered at your plea hearing. You described your childhood to Ms Cokorilo as stable and largely positive, free from familial violence. You lived with your parents until your early twenties, when you moved into your partner's home. You described your mother as caring and supportive but your father as tough and cold and you were harshly disciplined by him on a few occasions.
26 You are the youngest of three brothers, one of whom tragically passed away five years ago. You have a strained relationship with your other brother, who was violent towards you throughout your childhood.
27 You performed poorly in school and struggled to maintain friendships. You told Ms Cokorilo that you were 'a bit different', shy, and having 'a hard time fitting in with people'. You also exhibited behavioural problems and told her you were always in detention. You were suspended eight times in high school before eventually being expelled in Year 11. Although you received one‑on‑one learning support, you were never assessed to determine whether there was a psychiatric, psychological, or organic explanation for these problems.
28 After leaving school, you completed a boilermaker apprenticeship, and you have worked in the industry ever since. You have reportedly been released from three of the five jobs you have held in the industry due to periods of severe depression which leave you incapacitated and unable to attend work.
29 You have had one significant relationship in your life, producing three children. Throughout this relationship, disputes arose due to your substance abuse and related financial pressures. This relationship ended in October 2022, and an intervention order is in place preventing you from contacting your ex‑partner or your children.
30
You experienced problems with alcohol between the ages of 16 and 18.
You ceased drinking between the ages of 18 and 20 before recommencing. Since the beginning of the COVID‑19 lockdowns, you have reportedly consumed an average of 12 alcoholic drinks per day. You began consuming cannabis in your early twenties, smoking on average four grams per day. This ceased in May 2022 when you were admitted to a psychiatric hospital. You also used ecstasy recreationally between the ages of 18 and 19, and you have experimented with methamphetamines and ketamine.
31 You reported to Ms Cokorilo that you experienced a significant deterioration in your mental state in 2022 resulting in a voluntary presentation to a psychiatric hospital. You spent two weeks in that institution before being discharged, although a lack of follow‑up supports meant you quickly returned to old habits. A discharge summary from The Alfred Hospital was tendered which confirms that you were voluntarily admitted there on 1 May 2022 and discharged on 9 May 2022. I was told that you were exhibiting self‑harming conduct and suicidal ideation, but your explanation to Corrections Victoria was that you were treated for alcohol and drug withdrawal over a period of two weeks. You claimed to have been 40 days sober following that admission before relapsing heavily.
32 Since your discharge from The Alfred, you had two follow‑up appointments with a psychiatrist. I was told that the follow‑up care was inadequate. Thereafter you lost your job when your mental health deteriorated further and you stopped going into work because your depression became so entrenched you were bedridden. I note that your description of being let go from your last two jobs involved too many unacceptable absences in relation to one and losing your temper with your boss for the second. Ms Cokorilo records a history of increased alcohol consumption from that point up until the commission of these offences.
33
You have been assessed by the office of Corrections to determine your suitability for a community correction order. You provided a history to the case worker of having had a drinking problem since you were 16 years of age.
You told him that you swapped out alcohol for cannabis in your early twenties. You then describe a downward spiral in 2021 and 2022 when you were using both alcohol and cannabis daily in the garage of your home. I note that when you were assessed you were reluctant to discuss your offending conduct, telling the case worker that you were intoxicated and could not remember. You did recall the texts you sent, and you admitted to removing a table leg, which you used as a pole in your attack, but you could not explain why you carried a knife with you.
34
Greg Lane, a registered nurse with the Mental Health Advice and Response Service, assessed you on 3 July 2023. You identified issues with short‑term memory, concentration, and ability to focus, which you believed were attributable to alcohol and cannabis misuse. You told him that you were drunk at the time of your offending. You gave him a history of consuming up to
four grams of marijuana daily and consuming up to a slab of premixed spirits most days. You acknowledged that your abuse of these substances had a negative impact on your life choices, offending behaviour, relationships, and your mental state.
35 Mr Brugman submitted that limbs 1 and 5 of Verdins are enlivened due to the findings made by Ms Cokorilo.[7] The prosecution, as I have said, accepted that limb 5 is engaged but argued that your moral culpability is not relevantly reduced as a consequence of your dual diagnoses and as such it did not accept that limb 1 is enlivened.
[7] R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo (2007) 16 VR 269, 276 at [32].
36 Before making a finding as to the relevance of any limbs of Verdins, the Court in Brown v The Queen stated that a sentencing court must be provided with 'a clear, well‑founded expert opinion as to the nature and extent of the offender's impairment of mental functioning and, so far as it can be assessed, of its likely impact on the offender at the time of the offending and/or in the foreseeable future'.[8]
[8] 62 VR 491, 508 at [61].
37
Ms Cokorilo provided a psychological report and gave evidence. She told the court that she saw you on 8 May 2023 when you were in custody.
She administered psychometric testing, a self‑rating scale and other tests to determine the presence of major depression. She concluded from this testing that you were suffering a major depressive disorder and that you suffered from depression shortly before the offending. She said that your depression and anxiety would have had an effect on your general conduct but your borderline personality disorder would have had an acute effect. She described the characteristics of this condition on you as an 'oversensitivity to perceived abandonment'. She described your abandonment by your partner as the triggering of a key schema in your borderline personality disorder, leading to emotional dysregulation. In other words, she says that, due to your borderline personality disorder, you reacted disproportionately to the indications that your partner was leaving you.
38 She told the court that you have a number of neuro‑abnormalities which lead you to being unable to regulate your behaviour the way a neuro‑typical person would. As a consequence, she asserts that there is a link between your borderline personality disorder and your offending, which was triggered by fear of abandonment. She elaborated by saying that the abandonment schema in conjunction with your alcohol consumption caused the offending. She observed that you would likely have had more control over your behaviour if you had not been drunk. She recommended specialist treatment ‑ in particular, cognitive behavioural therapy. In cross‑examination, when it was put to her that the primary factor for your offending was your alcohol‑induced disinhibition, she said that it was intoxication plus the triggering of the abandonment schema and associated emotional dysregulation which caused your offending. She reiterated that, in her opinion, if you did not suffer from borderline personality disorder, you would not have emotional regulation issues and the offending was unlikely to happen.
39
The extent to which your moral culpability is reduced due to your borderline personality disorder is thorny because of your voluntary intoxication. You must have known that you are vulnerable to making poor decisions when drunk, but you continued to drink and make poor decisions. You told Ms Cokorilo that you had had 12 cans of premixed bourbon in the hours before this offending.
You also told her that you had stopped taking your antidepressant medication two to three weeks before this episode. In her report, she notes 'There is no doubt that Mr Bonnici would have exerted more control over his behaviour had he not been heavily intoxicated with alcohol. Alcohol use reduces inhibitions, which enables general criminal and deviant behaviours and is associated with poor social functioning'. I accept that there is a link between your condition and the emotional dysregulation underpinning your offending, but your intoxication exacerbated your exaggerated emotional response to your perceived abandonment. Your moral culpability is reduced somewhat, and this will result in a modest discount in sentence.
40 Regarding your prospects of rehabilitation, there are a number of factors which speak positively of your prospects. You have an established work history in the boiler‑making trade, completing a four‑year apprenticeship and then working as a boilermaker for several years. Your maintenance of prolonged employment suggests a capacity to integrate and work constructively alongside others.
41 Letters of support have been provided to me as part of your plea hearing. Your mother, Patricia Bonnici, refers to you as a caring person who was never violent and speaks with affection about the bond you have with your son, Blake, to whom you have passed on a love of fishing. Your father, Laurie Bonnici, says that you are not usually violent and this offending was out of character for you. He has tried to encourage you to seek help with your substance abuse issues, which he attributes in part to the death of your eldest brother. According to your father, your greatest loves are your four children and fishing. These letters speak positively about your character and your previous relationship with your children.
42
Against these factors, you indicated to Ms Cokorilo that you quickly relapsed into old habits following your release from psychiatric care in 2022. You also told Ms Cokorilo that you find it difficult to imagine a life of sobriety. Whilst
I acknowledge that there can be numerous false dawns in overcoming substance abuse, your perspective is concerning and suggests that your willingness to succeed in your rehabilitation may be sorely tested upon your release. That said, a certificate of achievement was tendered on your plea stating you have completed an Alcohol & Me program, which indicates you sought to address your alcohol abuse issues and develop harm minimisation strategies. Within the last year, you have also completed courses in kitchen operations, engineering, and civil construction. During your time on remand, you also worked as a welder and taught other inmates to weld. Completion of these courses are proactive steps to advance yourself both professionally and psychologically.
43 On balance, your prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable provided you maintain a regimen of abstinence and have sufficient supports domestically and professionally.
44 You have only one modest prior conviction. You do not have a history of resorting to violence. This offending was uncharacteristic. It was accepted by both parties that you had pleaded guilty at an early stage. Your plea at the committal mention has significant utilitarian value. You spared the three victims and other witnesses in this matter from undergoing the stress and anxiety of attending court and giving evidence. You have saved the time and resources that would have otherwise been spent running a criminal trial. Your sentences will be reduced in light of this utility.[9] Your plea has also been entered during a time where the court continues to feel the effects of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Your plea therefore carries additional utility to the court, and I have ameliorated your sentence in line with the principles identified by the court in Worboyes.[10]
[9] See Phillips v The Queen [2012] VSCA 140 at [47]; Cameron v R (2002) 209 CLR 339 at [42], [65]-[68].
[10] (2021) 96 MVR 344.
45 It was submitted that you are genuinely remorseful for your actions. This submission is supported by the report of Ms Cokorilo where she opines that you appeared genuine when you expressed remorse for your actions and empathy towards your victims. In particular, you expressed concerns for the effect your offending has had on the mental health of your victims and their children. How a court is to use evidence of remorse was considered in the case of Duncan, where the Court of Appeal said: ‘a plea that demonstrates genuine remorse and prospects of rehabilitation, that is entered at the earliest practical opportunity and that saves the State a trial and witnesses both trauma and inconvenience normally justifies a high discount.’[11] Offenders who wish to rely on remorse as mitigation must establish there is 'genuine penitence and contrition and a desire to atone',[12] and sentencing courts are advised to be cautious before accepting that a plea of guilty warrants more than a utilitarian discount.[13] In your case, I am prepared to find that you are genuinely remorseful. In addition to Ms Cokorilo's observations, your spontaneous admission upon your arrest that your victims had done nothing to deserve what you did to them confirms that you were immediately regretful.
[11] R v Duncan [1998] 3 VR 208, 215.
[12] Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288 at [38].
[13] Ibid at [40].
46 In their written submissions, the prosecution took me to a number of cases which dealt with sentencing for aggravated burglary and other offences.[14] These sentences have been useful in determining the sentence to be imposed in this instance, although I acknowledge the caution issued by the High Court when it said 'Sentences are not binding precedents but are merely “historical statements of what has happened in the past” … Examination of sentences imposed in comparable cases may inform the task of sentencing, but such examination goes beyond its rationale when it is used to fix boundaries that, as a matter of practical reality, bind the court'.[15]
[14] Degney v The Queen [2019] VSCA 183; Hatzis v The Queen [2021] VSCA 43; Hardwick v The Queen [2021] VSCA 67.
[15] Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (A Pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428, 454 [83].
47 Section 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 provides that the only purposes for which you may be sentenced are:
(a) To punish you in a manner and to an extent which is just in all of the circumstances,
(b) To deter you or others from committing similar offences in the future,
(c) To facilitate rehabilitation,
(d) To manifest the denunciation of your conduct,
(e) To protect the community, or
(f) A combination of two or more these purposes.
48 In your case, I consider general and specific deterrence to be of particular importance. Given your lack of a criminal history, I consider your prospects of reform to be reasonable. For this reason, I consider rehabilitation an important consideration also.
49 Insofar as the consideration of community protection is concerned, I have had regard to the remarks of Chief Justice French in the case of Hogan v Hinch: 'Rehabilitation, if it can be achieved, is likely to be the most durable guarantor of community protection and is clearly in the public interest.’[16] However, I note the remarks of Their Honours in Meyers where they said:
[16] (2011) 243 CLR 506, 537 at [32].
50 'We would wish to endorse the remarks in Filiz about the particular seriousness of offending involving former domestic partners. Violence of this kind is alarmingly widespread, and extremely harmful. The statistics about the incidence of women being killed or seriously injured by vengeful former partners are truly shocking. Although the cases under consideration do not fall into that worst category, they are symptomatic of what can fairly be described as an epidemic of domestic violence. General deterrence is, accordingly, a sentencing principle of great importance in cases such as these. Those who might, in a mood of anger or frustration or bitterness, contemplate this kind of violent entry into the home of a former spouse or partner must realise that, if they do so, they will almost certainly spend a long time in prison'.[17]
[17] Meyers at [45] – [46].
51 I will now proceed to sentence. Mr Bonnici, please stand up.
52 On Charge 1, causing injury intentionally, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' gaol.
53 On Charge 2, intentionally damage property, you are convicted and sentenced to eight months' gaol.
54
On Charge 3, aggravated burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to
two years' gaol.
55 On Charge 4, intentionally damage property, you are convicted and sentenced to five months' gaol.
56 On Charge 5, causing injury intentionally, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' jail.
57 The sentence on Charge 3 will be the base sentence. I order that six months of the sentence on Charge 1 be served cumulatively upon the sentence on Charge 3 and six months of the sentence on Charge 5 be served cumulatively. I order that the sentences imposed on Charges 2 and 4 be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on Charge 3.
58 This provides a total effective sentence of three years’ gaol. I fix a non‑parole period of two years.
59 I declare that you have served 284 days by way of pre‑sentence detention and that figure will be reckoned as served.
60 Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a term of four years and six months’ gaol with a non‑parole period of three years.
61 Lastly, the prosecution has sought a disposal order in relation to various items seized. I take it that order can be made by consent, Mr Brugman?
62 MR BRUGMAN: Yes, Your Honour. If Your Honour pleases.
63 HIS HONOUR: And I will make that order.
64 MR BRUGMAN: If Your Honour pleases.
- - -
0
12
2