Director of Public Prosecutions v Butler and Fotinos
[2021] VCC 1258
•1 September 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Indictment No. K12002423.2
Case No. CR-20-00077, CR-20-00078
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| DILLIN BUTLER and NICHOLAS FOTINOS |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE HANNEBERY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 15 July 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 1 September 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Butler and Fotinos | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1258 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Robbery – aggravated burglary – common assault – theft – serious example of the offence – step brothers – plea of guilty – Covid-19 – parity
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958; Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981; Sentencing Act 1991
Sentence: Butler: five years' and one month imprisonment and I direct that you serve a period of four years before becoming eligible for parole;
Fotinos: three years' and six months' imprisonment and I direct that you serve a period of two years and three months before becoming eligible for parole
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr J. Singh | Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused (Butler) For the Accused (Fotinos) | Mr M. Sturges Mr P. Bloemen | Chester Metcalfe & Co James Dowsley & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Dillin Butler and Nicholas Fotinos, on 15 July 2021 you were arraigned on Indictment K12002423.2 and both pleaded guilty to:
(a) Charge 1, which was robbery, contrary to s 75 of the Crimes Act 1958;
(b) Charge 2, aggravated burglary whilst person present, contrary to s 77 of the Crimes Act 1958;
(c) Charge 3, common assault; and
(d) Charge 4, theft, contrary to s 74(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.
2Dillin Butler, you also pleaded guilty to Charge 5, cultivate a narcotic plant, namely cannabis, contrary to s 72B of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.
3Nicholas Fotinos, you also pleaded guilty to Charge 6, possessing a drug of dependence, namely cannabis L, contrary to s73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substance Act 1981.
4The maximum penalties for those offences are as follows:
(a) Charge 1 – 15 years' imprisonment;
(b) Charge 2 – 25 years' imprisonment;
(c) Charge 3 – 5 years' imprisonment;
(d) Charge 4 – 10 years' imprisonment;
(e) Charge 5, being the cultivation – 12 months' imprisonment, or 20 penalty units, where, as is the case here, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offence was not committed by the person for any purpose related to trafficking in that plant; and in relation to
(f) Charge 6 – five penalty units.
Summary of Offending
5The prosecution tendered a summary of prosecution opening which was not in dispute.[1] In short, your offending is as follows:
[1]Prosecution Exhibit 1.
6At approximately 7.05 pm on 10 February 2019, the complainant ('Mr Brigham') was at the Coles Supermarket in Richmond. As Mr Brigham exited, he was approached by you, Mr Butler and Mr Fotinos, who attacked him. Mr Brigham felt a thud to his left ear and then felt his back hit a wall. He felt two or three more punches to the left side of his head. He covered his face with his hands and dropped to a foetal position, lying on his left side. Both you, Mr Butler, and you, Mr Fotinos, kicked and punched Mr Brigham.
7Mr Brigham then felt someone grabbing at his pockets as well as receiving two or three kicks to the back and right hand side of his head. He felt someone take a tobacco pouch and his keys, Mr Brigham managed to hold onto his wallet and phone (Charge 1 - robbery).
8Mr Brigham received three or four lumps to his head and was bleeding from a cut to his left ear. He had red marks on his back but did not seek medical attention after the robbery.
9
As you were both running away, you, Mr Fotinos, said, 'we're coming to your house tonight.' The police attended Mr Brigham and took him to the police station where he made a statement but failed to identify either of you, although he knew you,
Mr Fotinos, and recognised him as one of the attackers. Mr Brigham made another, more detailed statement on 13 August 2019 naming you, Mr Fotinos, with regard to the 10 February 2019 attack.
10On 27 February 2019, at approximately 5 pm, you both went to Mr Brigham's apartment in Richmond. You let yourself in with the keys you had previously stolen from Mr Brigham. Mr Brigham was in his bedroom, asleep. After entry, and from the hallway, someone called out, 'it's the police'.
11
Mr Brigham hurried out of his room and was confronted by you, each of you were wearing a balaclava that appeared to be made from a singlet or t-shirt. You,
Mr Butler were armed with a sharp object like a knife. You, Mr Fotinos, had a screwdriver. You, Mr Butler, said to Mr Brigham, 'do you want to put a statement on me?'. Mr Brigham tried to push both accused out of the flat. You, Mr Butler, waved his sharp object at Mr Brigham and put him in greater fear. You, Mr Butler, pushed Mr Brigham towards the bedroom wall and Mr Brigham fell to the floor.
12
You, Mr Butler, then directed Brigham to the living room saying they should, 'have a talk'. You told Mr Fotinos to 'lock the door so no one can get in or out.'
Mr Brigham sat on the couch while you, Mr Butler, and you, Mr Fotinos, stood opposite on the other side of the coffee table. You both then took off your face coverings and Mr Brigham recognised Mr Fotinos. Both of you put on Latex gloves and then threatened Mr Brigham, demanding money, while pointing their weapons at him.
13
You, Mr Fotinos, went into the bedroom. You, Mr Butler, stayed, guarding
Mr Brigham. Still holding the sharp object, you, Mr Butler continued to wave it threateningly at Mr Brigham, and while doing this also made verbal threats to
Mr Brigham. You, Butler, then offered Mr Brigham a bottle of Jack Daniels and Coke. Mr Brigham said he did not drink but that you, Mr Butler, told him to take it if he wanted to avoid being hurt. Mr Brigham drank (despite the fact that he does generally drink alcohol).
14
You, Mr Fotinos, came out of the bedroom after about 10 minutes and said, 'we can stab you, we can kill you and no one would know'. Mr Brigham saw that you had his keys that had been stolen from him. You, Mr Butler, went to the fridge and took out a yogurt and ate it. You both smoked a cigarette and offered one to
Mr Brigham. You, Mr Butler left the cigarette butt on the coffee table.
15You both then searched the apartment, gathering together some property, including Mr Brigham's wallet with approximately $350 to $450 cash, a bank card, together with a Samsung mobile phone, Samsung tablet, a black Xbox, and a pair of Nike green fluoro runners. You told Mr Brigham to write down his PIN number for the ATM. You, Mr Butler, then lunged at Mr Brigham with the sharp object, but it was too blunt to get through his clothes.
16
You both then then left the premises but told Mr Brigham that he is lucky he did not get hurt, lucky you did not kill him, and if he made another statement to the police, they would be back. As you both left, you threw a bunch of tobacco at
Mr Brigham (Charges 2, 3 and 4).
17Mr Brigham got ready to leave the premises immediately, worried that the threats may be real and that you both might return. As he got his shoes from the bedroom, he noticed that there was graffiti on the wall. He recognised it as 'EMZOE', which is one of Mr Fotinos' graffiti tags. As his keys had been stolen, Mr Brigham had previously asked the housing authority to change the locks from the robbery in February. However, that task had not been done.
18Mr Brigham rode his bike to his father's house and told him what happened. His father rang emergency services asking for the police. Police attended and observed signs of a disturbance. Items had been thrown around the living room and bedroom area, and there were the cigarette butts, and the bottle of Jack Daniels and Coke. The cigarette butts and the bottle were collected,
19When Mr Brigham was at his father's home, he went onto Mr Fotinos' Facebook page and identified you, Mr Butler, from pictures of him with Mr Fotinos on the page. He took a screenshot and showed this to police.
20On 27 July 2019, a number of Facebook messages from Mr Brigham's account were sent to his brother Wesley, but not by him, enquiring about his brother's address. Wesley thought this strange at the time as John Mr Brigham knew his address. A screen shot was obtained by the police.
21You were both arrested on 31 July 2019. The police executed a search warrant at you, Mr Fotinos', father's address, where you were both staying. Items seized by police included:
(a) The Samsung tablet belonging to Mr Brigham;
(b) Mr Brigham's black Xbox;
(c) A cannabis plant located in Mr Butler's bedroom;
(d)
Two tubs with seven cannabis seedlings located on the back shelf in
Mr Butler's bedroom (Charge 5);
(e) Mr Brigham's keys on a blue lanyard located on the shelf from the centre of Mr Fotinos' bedroom;
(f) A zip lock bag containing 4 buds of cannabis, which was found under your bed, Mr Fotinos (Charge 6);
(g) A grey backpack worn by you, Mr Fotinos, during the home invasion;
(h) One axe with a wooden handle found in Mr Fotinos' bedroom;
(i) One black mobile phone in Mr Fotinos bedroom;
(j) Mr Brigham's stolen fluoro green Nike runners located on the kitchen floor;
(k) A white Apple iPhone;
(l) A black and yellow screwdriver located in a tool bag on the living room floor;
(m) An oil filter charger located on the tool bag in the lounge room near the TV; and
(n) White latex gloves which were located but not seized.
22On the same day, 31 July 2019, you were both interviewed by the police.
Impact on the Victim
23John Brigham, the victim in relation to both of these incidents, the subject of the indictment, has provided a victim impact statement in relation to this matter.[2] He says that every day since the offence he has been extremely depressed and has high levels of anxiety. He has lost weight and has trouble sleeping. The offences impacted upon his capacity to trust people. He describes how even his brother knocking at his door has led him to break down in tears. He describes feeling scared and vulnerable.
[2]Prosecution Exhibit 2.
24The impact of a crime upon its victim is a matter that I must take into account pursuant to s 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991, and I do so. In properly placing weight on the impact to the victim, I am conscious not to let this one factor overwhelm other relevant sentencing considerations.
Nature and Gravity of Offending
25The incident the subject of Charge 1, robbery, was a brazen attack on an unarmed and outnumbered person in a public location. The robbery involved the use of actual physical force on the victim in the form of punches to the head and kicks. The victim suffered cuts and bleeding from his head which, whilst not serious injuries in themselves, are indicative of the level of force used in the course of the robbery.
26The property stolen by use of that force were not items that were of great intrinsic value. These items included, however, a house key that gave both of you access to the victim's premises. The comment from you, Mr Fotinos, that 'we are coming to your house tonight', had a particular menace at the time it was stated, and acquired a greater significance with subsequent events.
27Whilst there is no evidence that your actions were other than opportunistic, in all the circumstances Charge 1 is a serious example of the offence of robbery.
28The robbery was in every way a joint criminal enterprise and there is nothing to distinguish the roles played by either of you.
29By contrast, the incident on 27 July 2019, from which Charges 2, aggravated burglary, 3, common assault, and 4, theft, are derived, could not be said to be opportunistic.
30
Your entry to the victim's premises as trespassers with an intention to steal was achieved using the key taken from the victim during the robbery of
10 February 2019. Whilst it cannot be precisely concluded when the plan to attend the victim's premises was conceived, the criminal enterprise must have involved some level of premeditation.
31Adding to the gravity of the offence, it was a crime planned against a person you had already offended against and whom you must have understood from the fact of the earlier incident was incapable of resisting your demands. This was a targeted offence against someone, alone in his house and outnumbered, who you knew to be vulnerable.
32You both made crude efforts to disguise yourselves, but this pretence was temporary. You, Mr Butler, were armed with what is described as a sharp object like a knife. You, Mr Fotinos, had a screwdriver. You, Mr Butler, made reference to the victim making a statement against you and put him in fear by waving the sharp object. He was pushed to the floor. It is clear from your actions after entering the premises that you intended to intimidate the victim in order to achieve your ends and to attempt to avoid detection.
33You both made threats and demanded money whilst pointing weapons at the victim. You remained in the premises for some minutes. These actions are the subject of Charge 3, common assault. The combination of the physical manhandling of the victim in his own home, combined with your actions and threats that placed him in undoubted fear, make this an especially serious example of the offence of common assault.
34The theft ultimately achieved by your actions was of objectively modest value, but the amount of money, the electronic items, the bankcard and the runners were of significant worth to the victim.
35In relation to the incident on 29 July 2019 for Charges 2, 3 and 4 on the indictment as applicable to both of you, there is no basis in any analysis of your respective roles to distinguish one as more serious than the other.
36The cultivation of cannabis that is the subject of Charge 5 and applicable only to you, Mr Butler, relates to a small number of seeds and a small number of immature plants. There is no suggestion that the cultivation had a commercial purpose. It is a low range example of the offence.
37Similarly, the possession of cannabis that is the subject of Charge 6 and applicable only to you, Mr Fotinos, relates to only to the four buds of cannabis located in the search, and is a minor example of the offence.
Personal Circumstances
38You, Mr Butler, and you, Mr Fotinos, are stepbrothers. Mr Butler, you were 28 years old at the time of the offending and are 31 at the time of sentence. You have never met your biological father and your childhood was marred by neglect, exposure to drug abuse, and sexual abuse. You have had two long term relationships and do not have any children.
39You attended school to completion of Year 10, however struggled with your studies due to behavioural difficulties. After leaving school, you worked in landscaping, baking, as a kitchen hand, and with a removalist company. Prior to your remand you were receiving a Newstart Allowance from Centrelink.
40You report a long history of illicit substance use, including cannabis from age 16, methylamphetamine from age 20, and proscription medication Lyrica. You are currently receiving 90 milligrams of methadone daily. At the time of the offending, you reported daily use of methylamphetamine and cannabis.
41You have admitted a concerning criminal history, including convictions for violence and dishonesty. You have no prior convictions for aggravated burglary or cultivation of cannabis.
42
A psychological report of Mr Jeffrey Cummins was tendered on your plea.[3]
Mr Cummins opined that you 'most probably suffer from a trauma and stressor-related disorder such as chronic Adjustment Disorder and/or complex post-traumatic stress disorder'. However, Mr Cummins was unable to provide any conclusive diagnosis from this assessment.
[3]Defence of Butler Exhibit 2.
43A neuropsychological report of Dr Linda Borg was also tendered.[4] Dr Borg commented that you 'present[ed] with predominant deficits in verbal intellectual and memory functioning' and opined that your 'cognitive deficits likely reflect a neurodevelopmental verbal learning disorder, with additional contribution from a history of maladaptive cluster B personality traits'.
[4]Defence of Butler Exhibit 3.
44During a previous period of incarceration, it is reported that you attempted suicide.
45You have been on remand for these charges since 31 July 2019, and Mr Cummins comments that you are at risk of becoming institutionalised. You have instructed that you are completing courses in English and Mathematics whilst in custody and are employed as a billet.
46Your personal history reveals a disadvantaged upbringing marked by substantial trauma. It is this background that I take into account as providing some important context for the circumstances leading to the offending and is a matter in mitigation of sentence.
47Mr Fotinos, you are 24 years old and were 22 years old at the time of offending. Your mother and father had a difficult relationship marred by your father's long-standing drug addiction. This resulted in DHHS involvement when you were of a young age. Your parents separated in 2013 when you were 16 years old.
48You attended Abbotsford Primary and repeated Grade 2. You went on to Hawthorn Secondary College but were expelled at the end of Year 7 for throwing a pencil at a teacher. You then went to Collingwood Alternative School but were again expelled after approximately one year. You then attended Island Works in Coburg and reached Year 11 before being expelled once more.
49You have worked in various labouring roles, including as a plumber and bricklayer, except in 2018 when you were caring for your mother who had fallen ill.
50You have been a daily user of marijuana since you were 11 years of age up until the time you were remanded. You were exposed to 'ice' when you were 14 years old and became heavily addicted when you were 16 years old. You completed a detoxification program in around February 2019 and have been previously been treated by a Drug and Alcohol worker.
51I similarly have regard in mitigation of sentence for what is undoubtedly your significantly disadvantaged upbringing.
Plea of Guilty and Remorse
52Your matter, Mr Butler, resolved to pleas of guilty to the charges on the current indictment after an offer was made around 13 May 2021, and accepted by the prosecution that day. It could not be said that your plea of guilty was made at the earliest available opportunity, given that the matter had proceeded through the committal hearing and had first come to the County Court for a directions hearing in January 2020, and was subsequent managed as part of the emergency case management protocol. However, there is still significant utilitarian value in your pleas of guilty. By your pleas, you saved the time and resources that would otherwise have been expended on contested proceedings, and significantly, you have spared the victim the inconvenience and stress of further cross examination at trial.
53The utilitarian worth of a plea is enhanced, having regard to the significant pressures placed on court listings by current pandemic restrictions.
54I also take into account that by your plea of guilty you have brought proceedings that would otherwise have extended well into 2022 to a close. Even having regard for the fact that you have been contesting the charges until relatively recently, a period of more than two years has passed since your arrest and remand in custody. This fact once again highlights the value to the justice system by your pleas of guilty.
55You, Mr Fotinos, made an offer to plead guilty to the charges comprising the current indictment around 16 March 2021, and that this offer was accepted by the Crown on 24 March 2021. As such, your plea of guilty is slightly earlier than that of Mr Butler. Other than that, however, the matters relating to the utilitarian value of your plea is the same as I described in relation to Mr Butler's.
56You, Mr Butler, made some admissions to the police about your involvement in the two incidents the subject of the offending. That you admitted to your presence at the victim's address, and some partial admissions about your conduct at those premises.
57Mr Butler, you also told psychologist Mr Cummins that there was 'no excuse for your offending against the victim'. Mr Cummins opined that you were 'taking responsibility for the offending for which [you are] now pleading guilty'.
58In combination with your plea of guilty, I consider that you have some limited remorse for your offending, though it is substantially short of complete contrition.
59You, Mr Fotinos, made some admissions in your interview with police concerning both the February 2019 and July 2019 incidents, albeit that your account differs substantially from the factual basis put forward by the prosecution on this plea.
60I am similarly prepared to consider that your plea of guilty is evidence of some, but limited, remorse.
Prospects of Rehabilitation
61Mr Butler, the very serious nature of this offending, in the context of your substantial criminal history, means that your prospects of rehabilitation must be viewed very cautiously. They are, however, by no means hopeless. You are not a youthful offender, but at age 31 you are still a young man and the community has a vested interest in you successfully rehabilitating. Your prospects of achieving this are heavily dependent upon your capacity to remain abstinent from illicit substances. This, in turn, will be impacted by your willingness and capacity to engage with appropriate treatment for your mental health and cognitive deficiencies. You told Mr Cummins that you are currently determined to 'turn [your] life around'. It is to be hoped that you retain this attitude.
62Mr Cummins assessed your risk of reoffending to be 'moderate-high' using the HCR-20 assessment tool. Having regard to all of the circumstances, I consider that your prospects of rehabilitation must be guarded.
63Mr Fotinos, you were only 22 years old at the time of this offending and are still only 24 years old. You have relevant prior convictions; however, they are substantially less in volume and gravity than Mr Butler's.
64You have no prior history for matters involving burglary, and only a single prior conviction for violence, namely a conviction for recklessly causing injury. The offending the subject of this proceeding represent a substantial escalation as compared with the previous occasions you have been before the courts.
65You have been in custody since your arrest in July 2019. This represents your third separate occasion in custody, though the previous two occasions were very short stints on remand. You have had two prior opportunities to undertake community corrections orders, both of which ended in breach proceedings. You were on a community corrections order at the time of the offending the subject of this indictment.
66In the course of your plea, I received two reports confirming your participation in drug and alcohol programs whilst in custody.[5] You have also undertaken other educational opportunities whilst incarcerated. It is to your credit that you have used your time in custody as effectively as has been possible having regard for the impact of pandemic restrictions.
[5]Defence of Fotinos Exhibits 2 and 3.
67Whilst the fact of your contest to the charges, in combination with the suspension of jury trials as a result of the pandemic, has caused a substantial amount of time to elapse between your arrest and the ultimate resolution of the matter, to the extent you have used this time in custody to rehabilitate, that is to your credit.
68The very serious nature of this offending makes it difficult to be overly optimistic about your prospects of rehabilitation. However, the fact of your youth and your engagement with counselling and treatment for drug and alcohol issues since being incarcerated provides a basis to conclude that these prospects are at least reasonable and capable of getting better if you continue to engage with appropriate services.
69I have also had regard for the fact that as a youthful offender, in your case, rehabilitation acquires a greater significance in the sentencing process.
Impact of COVID-19
70Both of you have served a substantial portion of your time on remand while subject to the restrictions enforced on the prison environment as a result of the pandemic. It would appear highly likely that these restrictions, including but not limited to restrictions on educational courses, access to treatment and personal visits will persist for the foreseeable future. This represents an increased burden of imprisonment, and I take it into account in mitigation of sentence.
Sentencing Principles
71The nature of the offending is such that I must have regard for general deterrence, the denunciation of your conduct, protection of the community, and the imposition of a punishment that is just in all circumstances. Having regard to the fact you both have relevant criminal history; it is also necessary to impose a sentence with the purpose of specifically deterring you from further offending.
72I have also had regard for to your prospects of rehabilitation as I have found them to be.
73I must impose sentences that are appropriate for the individual charges to which they relate. I must also structure the sentence in such a way as to ensure that the total effective sentence reflects the entirety of the criminality represented by the offending on the indictment.
74To that end, I consider that it is appropriate that there be some cumulation between the sentence imposed on Charge 1, relating to the incident in February 2019, and Charges 2, 3 and 4, that relate to the incident in July 2019.
75I consider that Charge 2, aggravated burglary, to be the most serious of the offences on the indictment and as such will be the base sentence. Charges 3 and 4 were committed close in time to Charge 2 and are otherwise closely related, albeit that they do represent separate and distinct additionally criminality. As such, I consider that there is the need for only modest cumulation in relation to those charges.
Parity
76I must have regard to the principle of parity to ensure consistency of punishment. When two co-offenders are sentenced, any significant difference in sentences imposed upon them should be capable of rational explanation. In this case, I have already noted that there is no distinction to be made with regard to your respective role in relation to either of the incidents.
77I do, however, consider that Mr Fotinos, your youth and more limited criminal history justifies a lower sentence being imposed on you than that which is imposed on Mr Butler.
Submissions on Sentence
78Mr Sturges, on behalf of Mr Butler, conceded that the seriousness of the offending required the appropriate disposition to involve a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period.[6]
[6]Defence of Butler Exhibit 1.
79Mr Singh, on behalf of the Director, submitted that in relation to Mr Butler, a sentence involving term of imprisonment and a non-parole was appropriate, and that it would not be open to the court to impose any other sentence.
80Mr Bloemen, on behalf of Mr Fotinos, submitted that a period of imprisonment followed by a community corrections order would meet the purposes of sentencing.[7]
[7]Defence of Fotinos Exhibit 1.
81In relation to Mr Fotinos, Mr Singh submitted that a combination sentence would not be appropriate, and that the ultimate sentence ought to involve a period of imprisonment with a non-parole period.
82At the conclusion of the plea hearing, I ordered that you, Mr Fotinos, be assessed for your suitability for a community corrections order. You were found suitable for such an order. However, in all the circumstances of the case and having regard for the gravity of the offence, I have concluded that a combination sentence is inappropriate in this case.
Sentence
83Mr Butler, I sentence you as follows:
84On Charge 1, robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to one year and nine months' imprisonment.
85On Charge 2, aggravated burglary with a person present, you are convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
86On Charge 3, common assault, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
87On Charge 4, theft, you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment.
88On Charge 5, cultivate a narcotic plant, namely cannabis, you are convicted and fined $500.
89I order that 9 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1, 3 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3, and 1 month of the sentence imposed on Charge 4 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 2.
90That makes for a total effective sentence of five years' and one month imprisonment.
91I direct that you serve a period of four years before becoming eligible for parole.
92Pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you have spent 764 days of pre-sentence detention which will be reckoned as already served.
93The prosecution made application for disposal, this was not opposed by counsel on your behalf, and I make that order in the terms sought.
94Pursuant to s6AAA Sentencing Act 1991, but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of six years' and three months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years.
95Mr Fotinos, I sentence you as follows:
96On Charge 1, robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to one year and three months' imprisonment.
97On Charge 2, aggravated burglary person present, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' and nine months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
98On Charge 3, common assault, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
99On Charge 4, theft, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
100On Charge 6, possess cannabis, you are convicted and fined $250.
101I order that 6 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1, 2 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3, and 1 month of the sentencing posed on Charge 4 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 2.
102This makes for a total effective sentence of three years' and six months' imprisonment.
103I direct that you serve a period of two years and three months before becoming eligible for parole.
104Pursuant to s18(4) Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you have spent 764 days of pre-sentence detention reckoned as served.
105Pursuant to s6AAA Sentencing Act 1991, but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months.
106Any other orders?
107Sorry, I just want to make sure - I might check the maths on Mr Fotinos' sentence. So, it was one year, three months on Charge 1, two years, nine months, on Charge 2, six months on Charge 3, three months on Charge 4. So, I ordered that six months of Charge 1 be served cumulatively on Charge 1, that two months of Charge 3 be served cumulatively , and one months of Charge 4, so does that come up with three years and six months?
108MR SINGH: All the arithmetic is correct, Your Honour.
109HIS HONOUR: Thank you. That is all right. And pursuant to section - sorry, in the non-parole period - I will just state that again -is a period of two years and three months before becoming eligible for parole, and that the days of pre-sentence detention are 764 and they will be reckoned as served.
110MR SINGH: Yes.
111HIS HONOUR: All right. Are there any other orders required?
112MR SINGH: No, thank you, Your Honour.
113MR STURGES: Thank you, Your Honour.
114HIS HONOUR: Thank you all for your assistance. I will adjourn the court until 10.30, thank you.
115MR SINGH: As Your Honour pleases.
- - -
0
0
0