Director of Public Prosecutions v Carter
[2020] VCC 2003
•10 December 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-20-00756
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| WARREN CARTER |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE D. SEXTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 7 October and 7 December 2020 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 10 December 2020 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Carter | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 2003 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004
Cases Cited:The Queen v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 212; Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293;
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr S Devlin (for plea) Mr A. Buckland (for sentence) | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr D Sala | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1 Warren Carter, you have pleaded guilty to an Indictment containing five charges:
· one charge of common assault[1], Charge 1, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment;
[1]Contrary to common law
· two charges of false imprisonment[2], Charges 2 and 3, which carry a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;
[2]Contrary to common law
· one charge of make threat to inflict serious injury[3], Charge 4, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment; and
· one charge of possession of child abuse material[4], Charge 5, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
[3]Contrary to s21 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
[4]Contrary to s51G(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016
2 You have also admitted your criminal record.
Circumstances of Offending
3 The circumstances of your offending were set out in the Summary of Prosecution Plea Opening dated 29 September 2020, which was read out at your plea hearing. That document sets out the factual basis upon which you will be sentenced. For the purposes of my remarks today and to protect the identity of your child victims, initials only will be referred to.
4 Your offending can be briefly summarised.
5 At the time of your offending, you were 46 years of age and resided at an address in Ballarat North. Your victim in relation to Charges 1 and 2, Sara Seward[5], was 14 years of age and, at the time, was under the care of the Department of Health and Human Services. She had known you for a long time.
[5] A pseudonym.
6 On Friday night, 13 March 2020, Sara attended at your home along with Ayla Prichard[6], a friend of Sara’s who was then 16 years of age, and your victim in relation to Charge 3. Also present at the house was an acquaintance of yours, Mr Tomas Burke[7], who was 42 years of age at the time, and who is your victim in relation to Charge 4 on the Indictment.
[6] A pseudonym.
[7] A pseudonym.
7 Whilst at the house, Ayla and Tomas saw you and Sara Seward being affectionate with each other.
8 In the early hours of Saturday, 14 March 2020, you became angry. You demanded that 14‑year-old Sara Seward have sex with you. She refused.
9 You dragged Sara into your bedroom and attempted to pull down her pants. Whilst in the bedroom, you said words to the effect of 'I need a fuck ... you’re not leaving this room until you have sex with me.' Sara felt like a hostage. Your conduct in relation to Charge 2 on the Indictment, the false imprisonment in relation to Sara, commenced at this time.
10 You argued with Sara in the bedroom. During this argument, you swung a punch at Sara and picked up a screwdriver and lunged it at her face. Fortunately Sara moved, and there was no actual contact made with her. Your conduct in this regard forms the basis of Charge 1 on the Indictment, common law assault.
11 You then started smashing things up. You tried to block the doorway of your bedroom to stop Sara leaving, but she was able to get past you. Tomas Burke tried to open the bedroom door, and this assisted, moving you from the doorway. Whilst this was occurring and Sara was still in the bedroom, Ayla Prichard would not leave the house without Sara.
12 You then locked the back door of the house, followed by the front door. You then demanded the telephones of both Sara and Ayla, who were then both petrified. Your actions in this regard prevented both from leaving the premises. Your conduct in relation to Sara in both the bedroom and the house forms the basis of Charge 2 on the Indictment, false imprisonment. Your conduct in relation to preventing Ayla from leaving the house forms the basis of Charge 3 on the Indictment, false imprisonment in relation to her.
13 Tomas Burke tried to assist the females to leave through the front door, but you were standing by the front door, not letting anyone out. You argued with Tomas and shoved him. You then said to Tomas words to the effect that you would shoot Tomas and, “gut him like a pig”. Your conduct in this regard forms the basis of Charge 4 on the Indictment, threat to inflict serious injury.
14 You forced Tomas from the premises, at which point Tomas rang the police due to his concern in relation to Sara and Ayla.
15 Police subsequently attended your premises. You had told Sara and Ayla to go to the back of the house. When police questioned you, you did not disclose that the females were in the house. Police ultimately located the children in the back of the house, both in a hysterical and distressed state.
16 You were subsequently arrested on Wednesday, 18 March 2020, when police executed a search warrant at your premises. When police examined your phone, they located a number of sexual images of Sara that were held in the phone’s photography file. At your plea hearing on 7 October 2020 I was informed by the prosecution that there were some 12 to 14 images, with some of them being doubles. The images showed Sara in various stages of undress. The images were classified as child abuse material, albeit falling within the lower categories of the relevant classification system. Your conduct in this regard forms the basis of Charge 5 on the Indictment, possession of child abuse material.
17 You were interviewed by police on 18 March 2020, where you denied all of the offending, except admitting to having the images of Sara on your phone, saying, 'It’s stuff she sent me'.
Impact on Victims
18
A Victim Impact Statement was filed in this matter from Ayla Prichard, dated
24 September 2020 (Exhibit B). In that Victim Impact Statement, Ayla Prichard indicated that since the incident she feels anxious and unsafe when she leaves her house, and even when still home she feels unsafe most of the time. She feels very angry that the offending occurred. She has stopped talking to most of her friends because she cannot trust anyone and feels extremely uncomfortable around older men. She indicated that she gets nightmares and wakes up screaming about the incident, and some days becomes very emotional about the smallest things. She concluded by indicating that the incident has caused a huge impact on her lifestyle. It must be remembered, of course, that Ayla was only 16 years of age at the time of this incident.
19 Sara Seward, the victim in relation to Charges 1 and 2 on the Indictment, did not sign a completed Victim Impact Statement. However, an unsigned statement was tendered by the prosecution on 7 December 2020 (Exhibit C). The prosecution indicated that Sara had not been willing to sign a completed statement, and the prosecution therefore submitted that the tendered document was relevant in relation to Sara Seward’s position in relation to the offending, with the weight attributed to that document being a matter for the court.
20 As your defence counsel pointed out, the document in its current form does not meet the definition of a Victim Impact Statement as contained in s.8K of the Sentencing Act 1991, as it was not duly declared. However, even in the absence of a Victim Impact Statement, it is expected that a 14-year-old victim in the position of Sara, a child then under the care of the Department of Health and Human Services, would likely have been adversely affected by your offending in relation to her. The document from Sara Seward is consistent with such sentiments and, to that extent, I have taken it into consideration.
21 Victim Impact Statements are an important means through which victims of crime can meaningfully participate in the sentencing process, by informing the court of the impact of offending on them.
Nature and Gravity of Your Offending
22 As conceded by your counsel, overall your offending must be regarded as serious. Your immediate trigger for your offending appears to have been your interactions with Sara Seward, a young and vulnerable girl of 14 years of age, who was then under the care of the Department of Health and Human Services. Whilst the extent of your prior knowledge and dealings with Sara Seward appears to have been in issue, the ‘Summary of Prosecution Plea Opening’ indicates that you, 'had known her for a long time'. I am satisfied, therefore, that you must have known both of her young age and vulnerability. There was a very significant age gap between you, as you were then aged 46. You appear to have commenced offending in the context of demanding sex from 14‑year-old Sara Seward and then becoming angry upon her refusal. The fact that Sara may have been physically affectionate with you earlier in the evening does not diminish, in my view, the gravity of your subsequent conduct with a child. I regard the significant age gap, Sara’s young age, and your knowledge of this and her overall vulnerability to be a significantly aggravating contextual factor in relation to your subsequent offending.
23 Furthermore, the backdrop to your offending which forms the basis of Charge 1, common law assault, is that upon Sara’s refusal to engage in sex with you, you dragged her into your bedroom and tried to pull her pants down, saying, 'I need a fuck ... you’re not leaving this room until you have sex with me'. The conduct forming the basis of the common law assault is of itself concerning: swinging a punch at a 14‑year-old girl, and then picking up a screwdriver and lunging it at her face. Your actions would no doubt have caused Sara to be terrified. Whilst you did not make physical contact with her, the overall circumstances in which you assaulted Sara, in particular, the contextual matters to which I have just referred, elevate the seriousness, in my view, of this offence. Having said that, I have taken care not to punish you in relation to the more serious charge with which you were originally indicted, assault with intent to commit a sexual offence. To be clear, the matters to which I have just referred are relevant in relation to the context within which the common law assault takes place, rather than any criminal intent on your part to engage in sexual activity.
24 In addition to this conduct, for some time, it seems, you falsely imprisoned Sara Seward, both in your bedroom and, more broadly, in your house. Whilst this was occurring you were 'smashing things up' in the house, falsely imprisoning 16‑year-old Ayla Prichard, and threatening to gut and shoot the other male adult in the premises, Tomas Burke. Unsurprisingly, Sara felt like a hostage.
25 The false imprisonment in relation to Ayla was of a shorter duration than the false imprisonment relating to Sara. Whilst Ayla indicated that she could have left the house when Sara was detained in the bedroom, she felt that she could not leave without her. Both she and Sara were then detained by you when you locked the back door of the house and the front door of the house and demanded their telephones.
26 Given the young age and overall circumstances in which you falsely imprisoned both girls, I regard both instances of false imprisonment to be serious examples of this offence, with the charge relating to Sara being the most serious, given its more sustained nature and the assault‑related behaviour that you engaged in with her.
27 Your threat in relation to Tomas Burke was highly offensive and menacing. You threatened to shoot him and, 'gut him like a pig'. However, there is no suggestion that at this time you were armed in any way and, given the isolated nature of the threat, it is perhaps not the most serious example of the offence of threatening to inflict serious injury. Nevertheless, in the circumstances in which this offence occurred, this is a concerning example of such a crime.
28 Your possession of the child abuse images in relation to Sara Seward is reflective, in my view, of your highly inappropriate relationship with her, given Sara’s young age. However, given the small number of images and the apparently low-level classification of those images, whilst this is obviously concerning behaviour on your part, I do not regard it as a particularly serious example of this offence.
Personal Circumstances
29 In gaining an understanding of your background and personal circumstances, I have had regard to the autobiographical information provided in your counsel’s written submissions, together with the matters contained in the psychological report from psychologist, Ms Gina Cidoni, dated 14 September 2020, and the details contained in the comprehensive neuropsychological report from Dr Loretta Evans of Community Health Partners, dated 4 November 2020. I have found that latter report in particular to be of considerable assistance.
30 You are currently 47 years of age, having been born in Ballarat. You have reported that your parents had children from previous relationships, and that you had a total of five older half-siblings. You have had almost no relationship with your siblings. Your parents separated when you were about three, and since then you have had extremely limited, if any, contact with your father. You initially lived with your mother in difficult circumstances before you were placed into foster care at the age of nine, where you remained until late adolescence. Whilst you reported some positive placements, you have also reported significant instances of physical and sexual abuse throughout your childhood and adolescence in this context. In that regard, I note that one of your placements was at Baltara, sadly a rather notorious home in the context of matters reported to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
31 Perhaps unsurprisingly, your schooling was chaotic and interrupted, given your constant movement from different locations whilst growing up. You were expelled from school in Year 8, before returning briefly in Year 9 and then being expelled again, marking the end of your formal education at the age of 15.
32 After leaving school, you had some work in various unskilled positions before becoming unemployed. You have reported being unemployed for the past 17 years and nominated the Disability Support Pension as your main source of income.
33 You have a highly problematic substance-abuse history. You began drinking a cask of port per day from the age of 13, often attending school intoxicated. This occurred in the context of a foster carer being an alcoholic. You have reported that you consumed alcohol in this manner for three or four years before reducing your consumption at around the age of 17 and have reported extended periods of complete abstinence over the past 30 years. Your criminal history, however, suggests at least some episodes of problematic alcohol consumption after the age of 21.
34 From the age of 13 you smoked one gram of cannabis every day for eight years. You reported to Dr Evans being abstinent for the past 31 years, although Dr Evans questioned the veracity of this account. You have reported using amphetamines from the age of 30 and using three or four grams or more per day for some years before a period of abstinence until 2016. At that time you began to inject crystal methamphetamine, using up to one gram per day until your arrest in March of this year. According to Dr Evans, you have therefore been exposed to daily amphetamine use for a total of seven years.
35 You also nominated to Dr Evans that heroin was your drug of choice, and reported that you used as much as you could get your hands on from your early thirties, injecting up to seven grams per day on a daily basis for some four years before utilising the methadone program for the past 14 years. You have also reported experimental use of MDMA. You have reported a number of heroin-related overdoses. You have reported having never completed any formal drug-rehabilitation programs or received assistance with respect to your drug addiction.
36 In terms of intimate relationships, you have had a number of different partners over the years, and have fathered six children, ranging in ages from 23 to six, from four different partners. The most significant relationship that you have reported was with your last partner, Katrina Coleman, the mother of your two youngest children, Liam, aged approximately 11, and Tyler, aged approximately six. Sadly, Ms Coleman was diagnosed with lung cancer, and you apparently cared for her and your children until her death in 2016. You have reported that the context of the offending for which you now fall to be sentenced involved your descent into drug use and unresolved grief in relation to the death of Ms Coleman. These issues contributed to offending on your part after Ms Coleman’s death, leading to various sentences of imprisonment. You were released from prison in late 2019 and have reported becoming despondent and isolated following your release.
37 Your criminal history is significant and concerning. You have a criminal history both in Victoria and interstate. In Victoria your prior convictions date back to 1994. You have multiple prior convictions for driving-related offending, drug-related offending, dishonesty, and matters of violence.
38 In 1998 at the Ballarat County Court, you received a sentence of imprisonment of 14 months with a non-parole period of six months for the offences of threat to kill and false imprisonment. I have read and considered the sentencing remarks of his Honour Judge Cullity, indicating that the victim in that matter was a child protection worker who had disclosed protective concerns in relation to one of your children, causing you to behave in a threatening and aggressive manner towards her.
39 In 2004 you were sentenced to a total effective sentence of three years and nine months, with a non-parole period of two years and six months, for the offences of aggravated burglary and armed robbery. I have read and considered the sentencing remarks of his Honour Judge Strong in relation to that matter, which involved you engaging in a drug-related armed robbery, where you menaced the victim with a paint scraper with a broken blade, threatening to assault the victim if drugs were not provided.
40 You have various other assault-related matters, including recklessly cause injury, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, assault with a weapon, and most recently, in August 2019, aggravated assault of a female, which resulted in a four-month term of imprisonment. In my view, your prior convictions reflect your chaotic and, it seems, drug-addled life circumstances over a significant period of time, together with, concerningly, a propensity to resort to violence. Significant penalties imposed in the past have not, it seems, deterred you from re-offending in a serious manner. Concerningly, at the time of the current offending, you were subject to two court orders: an 18-month Community Correction Order which expired on 29 May 2020; and an adjourned undertaking with a condition to complete a behaviour change program imposed just a few weeks before your current offending, at the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court on 5 February 2020.
41 In the earlier psychological report of Gina Cidoni, dated 14 September 2020, in addition to detailing your history of traumatic events and longstanding drug‑related issues, Ms Cidoni referred to you having previously been assaulted on multiple occasions, and recommended further testing in relation to the possibility of a brain injury.
42 In that context, a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment was undertaken by Dr Loretta Evans, and her results were set out in her report dated 4 November 2020. In her report, Dr Evans referred to your self-report of having sustained in excess of ten losses of consciousness secondary to head strike and drug overdoses, and your previous contact with Ballarat Adult Mental Health Service from 2017 in relation to suicidal ideation. Dr Evans concluded that you have likely experienced a mild traumatic brain injury due to repeated head trauma and you are demonstrating a pattern of deficits that are most likely due to the effects of chronic drug use. This injury has produced a slight decline from premorbid ability, but not to within impaired ranges.[8]
[8]Dr Loretta Evans, Confidential Neuropsychological Report (4 November 2020), Page 12
43 In relation to any connection between any mental impairment and your offending, Dr Evans concludes that you possess sufficient reasoning, appropriate social awareness, insight, and problem-solving skills. You are capable of calm and reasoned responding. You have admitted that you were under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of the offending, and accordingly, Dr Evans does not consider that you demonstrated any connection between any cognitive difficulties and your criminal actions; nor is Dr Evans of the opinion that your emotional functioning appreciably contributed to your offending behaviour. In the opinion of Dr Evans, you were simply substance-affected at the time of the offending.
44 In the opinion of Dr Evans, your offending occurred in the context of your isolated and traumatic childhood, characterised by neglect, abandonment, and alleged repeated physical and sexual abuse. You have experienced significant difficulties through schooling, and problems with unemployment for extended periods of time. You have been the victim of multiple assaults, and you have a considerable drug and alcohol history.
Sentencing Factors
45 Pursuant to s.5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I am required to take into consideration various factors in formulating an appropriate sentence in your case. I have already referred to the maximum penalties, the impact on your victims, the nature and gravity of your offending, and your previous character.
Your Culpability and Degree of Responsibility for the Offences
46 Your counsel sensibly conceded that the mental health issues to which I have referred do not warrant any reduction in your culpability due to the well-established mental impairment principles.[9] However, given your deprived upbringing, I am satisfied that your moral culpability is reduced by virtue of the principles articulated in the High Court decision of Bugmy v The Queen.[10] As a result of your traumatic and difficult childhood, you have been exposed to significant violence and subsequent injury, extensive illicit drug and alcohol misuse, and an instability of life circumstances that has impacted upon your personal development from a young age. Pursuant to the Bugmy principles, notwithstanding an offender’s criminal history, a personal history of childhood deprivation and abuse remains a feature of one’s makeup and is relevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence in any given case.
[9]The Queen v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 and Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 212
[10]Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571
47 A history of profound dysfunction, disadvantage, and abuse is therefore relevant to an evaluation of your moral culpability. These background experiences have all played a significant role in shaping your personality and your responses. As a consequence, your subjective culpability for the offending in which you engaged cannot be equated with that of a person who committed the same offending but had the advantage of a normal, stable, and regular home environment during their formative years. In this way, a deprived background is an important mitigating circumstance in the determination of an appropriate sentence.[11]
[11]DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293 at [32]
Plea of Guilty
48 This matter resolved when you pleaded guilty before me upon arraignment on 8 September 2020 to the charges which are now on the Indictment. The matter resolved upon entering the emergency case management protocol in the County Court after you had entered a plea of not guilty through the straight hand‑up brief procedure in the Magistrates’ Court on 11 June 2020. Importantly, at that time you faced a considerably more serious charge of assault with intent to commit a sexual offence. After negotiations, the prosecution agreed not to proceed on that charge, and you ultimately entered your plea of guilty in relation to the common law assault charge on the Indictment, Charge 1.
49 In these circumstances, I am satisfied that you pleaded guilty at an early stage in proceedings, in relation to an appropriately drafted Indictment. Particularly, given that this resolution occurred within the COVID‑19 pandemic and the adverse impact upon the listing of trials in the County Court, with very considerable delays, the utilitarian benefit attaching to your plea of guilty is very significant, warranting a significant discount on sentence.
Remorse
50 In addition to your plea of guilty reflecting a degree of remorse, you have expressed remorse for your offending to psychologist, Gina Cidoni, indicating that you understood that your victims would have been scared and that you were remorseful.[12] In relation to your assessment with Dr Evans, whilst you indicated to her that you were only, 'a little bit', embarrassed by your actions, you were reported to have responded in a credible manner when expressing your remorse and regret for your offending. You were clear about the likely immediate consequences of your actions, and made numerous remarks suggesting that you were able to appreciate the impact of your behaviour on others.
[12]Gina Cidoni, Psychological Assessment (14 September 2020), Paragraph 10
51 In those circumstances, I am prepared to make a further mitigatory allowance based on your remorse for your conduct. A discount is warranted, as remorse supports a favourable finding in relation to rehabilitative prospects, the likelihood that you will engage again in such serious behaviour, and the need for the community to be protected from you.
COVID‑19 Considerations
52 You reported to Dr Evans that you were presently housed in protective custody. You are working as a billet in the bakery, making sausage rolls and pies. You indicated that you had completed various prison-based programs throughout your various prison sentences, including drug counselling and various vocational courses.
53 Like all prisoners, you have been adversely impacted by the COVID‑19 pandemic. For many months now, you have been the subject of strict lockdowns, the suspension of face-to-face visits, and limited abilities to engage in therapeutic programs. I was informed by your counsel that due to the custodial restrictions, you have been limited in your ability to engage with the Department of Health and Human Services in relation to your younger children, and you have been limited in your ability to reach out to your older children, being restricted to letter writing only. I accept that these are meaningful restrictions, which have no doubt made your time in custody more arduous. Furthermore, like all prisoners, you have also had to live with the added anxiety of the consequences upon your health should COVID‑19 enter the custodial setting.
54 In the course of conducting her assessment, Dr Evans obtained information from you and accessed various independent sources in relation to both your mental and physical health history. From that material, it appears that in September 2017 you had a splenectomy following being struck with a metal bar, which required a five-day admission to hospital post-surgery. You have also presented to medical authorities in recent years with symptoms consistent with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder following the death of your wife, and there have been instances of suicidal ideation. I am satisfied that the anxiety for you, in relation to the health implications of COVID-19 in the custodial setting, would be acute. As has been made clear in many previous sentencing decisions, a further mitigatory allowance is warranted due to the impacts of COVID‑19 upon your time in custody.
Prospects of Rehabilitation
55 I have previously referred to your extensive criminal history. Sadly, your criminal history, combined with the serious nature of your offending, suggests that your prospects of rehabilitation must be viewed as guarded. Indeed, as previously stated, at the time of the current offending you were subject to two court orders clearly aimed at your problematic behaviour in the community.
56 You indicated to Dr Evans a long term plan to have your children returned to your care, but you were not able to articulate how to achieve this, save for, 'fighting DHHS'.
57 You stated to Dr Evans that you did not intend to re-offend, indicating that you have had time to reflect in jail. Dr Evans conducted a risk assessment, using widely accepted tools. According to Dr Evans, your overall score was high, with significant historical risk factors such as previous violence, employment problems and substance use. You have the potential for impulsive reactions, negative attitudes, unresponsiveness to treatment, exposure to destabilisers, lack of personal support, and significant stress. In the opinion of Dr Evans, therefore, you presented with significant multiple risk factors which suggest that you are at increased risk of re-offending. Dr Evans concludes:
“Given Mr Carter’s history and appreciable risk factors for recidivism, without significant intervention and long term abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs, I consider his prospects for rehabilitation would be severely compromised.”[13]
[13]Dr Loretta Evans, Confidential Neuropsychological Report (4 November 2020), Page 12
Principles Relevant to Sentence
58 The offending in which you engaged was serious, for the reasons I have outlined. In imposing an appropriate penalty in this case, there is a need to reflect the sentencing principles of just punishment and denunciation of your serious conduct. As conceded by your counsel, general deterrence is a significant matter in relation to sentencing in your case.
59 Whilst you have indicated a degree of insight in relation to your offending, your significant and repetitive criminal history highlights the need for any sentence to reflect the need for specific deterrence in your case. Indeed, given the heightened risk factors outlined by Dr Evans, there is a need for any sentence to appropriately protect the community from you. Notwithstanding your considerable history, any sentence cannot ignore the need to facilitate your prospects of rehabilitation. Clearly, you will need considerable specialist interventions to facilitate your ultimate reintegration back into the community.
60 As I have stated, your conduct in relation to your three victims, particularly the two children, was serious and concerning. In sentencing you, I must denounce your offending, deter you from re-offending, deter other like-minded individuals who may contemplate such serious conduct, and I must protect the community from you. Whilst, as I have stated, you have a concerning criminal history and, it seems, an elevated risk of re-offending, I must also impose a sentence which appropriately facilitates your rehabilitation. I intend to do so through the imposition of a parole eligibility component to your sentence.
61 In all the circumstances, I must impose a sentence which represents just punishment. Your offending took place essentially on one evening. However, during the incident, you engaged in discrete acts of criminality in relation to three separate victims and, accordingly, there is, in my view, a need for a degree of cumulation in relation to the charges, subject to the overriding principle of totality.
Sentence to be Imposed
62 Mr Carter, I am now up to the portion of my sentencing remarks where I pass sentence on you in relation to the sentences on the indictment:
63 On Charge 1, common law assault, you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment;
64 On Charge 2, false imprisonment of Sara Seward, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. This is the base sentence;
65 On Charge 3, false imprisonment of Ayla Prichard, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment;
66 On Charge 4, threat to inflict serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment;
67 On Charge 5, possession of child abuse material, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.
68 I direct that 5 months on Charge 1, 5 months on Charge 3, 3 months on Charge 4, and 1 month on Charge 5, be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the base sentence imposed on Charge 2, making a total effective sentence of 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
69 I direct that you serve a period of 2 years and 8 months before becoming eligible for parole.
70 Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that had you pleaded not guilty, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.
71 Pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare a period of 267 days pre-sentence detention. This amount is to be administratively deducted from your sentence.
Ancillary Orders
72 I will make the disposal order sought by the prosecution in relation to the mobile phone that held the child abuse material, this application not being opposed by you.
73 As Charge 5 on the Indictment, possession of child abuse material, is a single Schedule 2, Class 2, Sex Offender Registration Act 2004 offence, you will be subject to the reporting requirements prescribed by the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 for a period of 8 years. As earlier indicated, that documentation will be forwarded to you for acknowledgment later today.
74 Mr Buckland, firstly, any issues or ambiguity in relation to the sentences imposed?
75 MR SALA: Mr Buckland is speaking but he has remained muted.
76 HIS HONOUR: Yes.
77 MR BUCKLAND: Thanks, Mr Sala. Sorry. No, Your Honour. I just want to confirm in relation to the disposal order a revised draft was sent just before court this morning.
78 HIS HONOUR: Yes. I will sign that in due course.
79 MR BUCKLAND: Thank you.
80 HIS HONOUR: Yes, thanks. Mr Sala, any ambiguities or other issues with regards to the sentence?
81
MS SALA: No. Would Your Honour indulge me? My audio is a bit awful. Can I just quickly run through the total - the time on each count: Count 1,
20 months; Count 2, 2 years and 6 months; Count 3, 2 years; Count 4, 15 months; and Count 5, 12 months?
82 HIS HONOUR: That is correct.
83 MR SALA: Thank you, Your Honour. I appreciate that. I am sorry, it was a technological issue my end.
84 HIS HONOUR: That is all right. Did you get the cumulation orders?
85 MR SALA: Yes, there was no interruption at that stage, thank you, Your Honour.
86 HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you.
- - -
4
0