Director of Public Prosecutions v Chamoun
[2024] VCC 1735
•30 October 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT COURT
CR 24-00305
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SAM CHAMOUN |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE D. SEXTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17 October 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 30 October 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Chamoun | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 1735 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Unauthorised possession of a traffickable quantity of
firearms; prohibited person possess an imitation firearm; theft
Legislation Cited: Firearms Act1996; Bail Act 1977; Sentencing Act1991
Cases Cited:Djemal v The Queen [2020] VSCA 25; Berichon v The Queen [2013] 40 VR 490; Veen v R (No 2) [1988] 164 CLR 467; Stevens v The Queen [2021] VSCA 218; Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269; DPP (Vic) v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160
Sentence: Three years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and two months' imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms J. Worrell | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Hooper | Slink & Keating Solicitors |
| (For Plea) | ||
| Ms Jansen | ||
| (For Sentence) |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Sam Soulieman,[1] on 18 September 2024 you pleaded guilty before me to one charge of unauthorised possession of a trafficable quantity of firearms, one charge of prohibited person possessing an imitation firearm and two charges of theft of motor vehicle, all of these offences carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. You also pleaded guilty to a number of related summary offences: one charge of possess cartridge ammunition, which carries a maximum penalty of 40 penalty points; one charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, which carries a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment; one charge of possessing a controlled weapon without excuse, which carries a maximum penalty of 12 months' imprisonment; one charge of failing to stop a vehicle after an accident, which in the circumstances of your case carries a maximum penalty of 14 days' imprisonment; and one charge of careless driving, which in the circumstances of your case carries a maximum penalty of six penalty units. You have also admitted your criminal history.
[1]Whilst your name on the indictment is recorded as Sam Chamoun, through your counsel you indicated a preferred name of Soulieman, and accordingly this name will be utilised for the purposes of this sentence.
2Your pleas of guilty to these charges were entered at the commencement of the determination hearing on 18 September 2024 in the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court. Preliminary submissions were advanced by your counsel Mr Hooper on this day before the matter was adjourned. On the return date, 17 October 2024, your counsel confirmed your instructions to abandon an application for a drug and alcohol treatment order and the matter then proceeded before me as a plea hearing.
Circumstances of offending
3The circumstances of your offending were set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 16 October 2024, Exhibit 1 at your plea hearing.
4Your offending can now be briefly summarised. At about 2 am on 9 February 2023 you were seen on CCTV footage walking along Hornby Street in Windsor. At the time you were subject to a grant of bail from the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 22 August 2022, with conditions which included a nightly curfew from 10 pm, hence your liability for related Summary Charge 9. A resident of Hornby Street, Windsor had parked his 1992 Nissan Patrol on the street, this vehicle being valued at approximately $15,000. You gained entry to the Nissan Patrol by unknown means and stole the vehicle, your conduct forming the basis of Charge 3 on the indictment, theft.
5In the early hours of 27 February 2023 an unidentified offender attended at a multilevel car park at 120 Bay Street, Port Melbourne in a Nissan Patrol bearing a different registration plate to that attached to the vehicle stolen by you on 9 February 2023. The offender was depicted on CCTV footage attaching a 2008 Sea-Doo Speedster 150 boat, and the boat trailer upon which it was stored, to the Nissan Patrol before leaving the car park.
6At about 6.50 am on 27 February 2023 a resident from Westbury Close in Balaclava observed the Nissan Patrol with the trailer and boat attached attempting to park on Westbury Close near his residence. The resident observed a male and female parking and detaching the trailer before driving off in the Nissan Patrol. The resident reported the boat and trailer to St Kilda police station, who confirmed that the boat and trailer had been reported stolen.
7The following day, at 6.35 am on 28 February 2023, the same resident observed the Nissan Patrol reattend at Westbury Close and begin to connect the trailer and boat to the vehicle. A witness was driving on Westbury Close and was blocked by the Nissan Patrol.
8Photos taken by the witness whose vehicle had been blocked depict you and your co-accused, 21-year-old Molly Richardson, attaching the trailer to the vehicle. Upon successfully attaching the boat and trailer, you both drove off towards Carlisle Street, whilst the resident called Triple 0, your conduct forming the basis of Charge 4 on the indictment, theft.
9A few minutes later, at approximately 6.42 am, police members arrived on scene at Westbury Close and observed the Nissan Patrol stationary on the road facing Carlisle Street. You then quickly drove around the police vehicle, with the trailer colliding with the driver's side of the police vehicle causing minor damage, your conduct forming the basis of the careless driving charge. The Nissan Patrol driven by you collided with several other parked vehicles in Westbury Close as it drove away.
10You hastily drove the Nissan Patrol north onto Westbury Street before crashing into a parked vehicle, this collision causing the boat to dislodge from the trailer, which then slid across the road and collided with another parked vehicle. You continued to drive the Nissan Patrol and trailer, which was missing a wheel because of the collision, eventually driving to the rear of a property at Ravens Grove in St Kilda East, where you parked the vehicle. Your failure to stop after causing property damage with the vehicle forms the basis of related Summary Charge 12.
11You and Ms Richardson were observed by residents hiding at the rear of this property.
12A witness then observed you and Ms Richardson enter an Uber rideshare vehicle and pointed the vehicle out to police members who followed the vehicle from Ravens Grove before intercepting it nearby. When the Uber stopped, you immediately jumped out of the vehicle with police chasing you on foot. Ms Richardson also left the vehicle in possession of a brown handbag and a black backpack. A large white-and-black bag was left behind in the Uber.
13You were subsequently arrested in a nearby street. Two satchel bags located on you were removed, with police locating a silver-coloured handgun in one of the satchels, along with two Ziploc bags containing loose ammunition. Subsequent examination of the silver handgun revealed a loaded magazine containing five rounds. The Ziploc bags located in the satchel bag contained 23 additional loose rounds. Your possession of the ammunition without a licence forms the basis of related Summary Charge 5.
14Ms Richardson was subsequently located by police in the nearby vicinity.
15Police conducted a search of the Uber vehicle from which you and Ms Richardson had attempted to abscond and located a white and black Moët & Chandon bag. An examination by police of the bag located numerous tools and house-breaking implements as well as a soft, black bag containing a sawn-off shotgun with five shells and a black imitation handgun otherwise known as a gel blaster. In contrast to the loaded silver-coloured handgun, which was found by police examiners to be in good overall condition and capable of being discharged, the sawn-off shotgun was found to be in poor overall condition and unable to be discharged. It had been manufactured prior to 1893. It was unloaded, as was the gel blaster.
16The silver handgun and the old sawn-off shotgun form the basis of Charge 1 on the indictment, unauthorised possession of a trafficable quantity of firearms. Your possession of the gel blaster forms the basis of Charge 2 on the indictment, prohibited person possessing an imitation firearm. At your plea hearing I was informed by the prosecution that, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Firearms Act 1996, your relevant prior conviction less than five years prior to the current offending which resulted in a term of imprisonment made you a prohibited person for the purposes of this offence.
17A further examination of the satchel located on you revealed a black-handled knife in a sheath, hence your liability for the related summary charge of possession of a controlled weapon without excuse.
Nature and gravity of the offending
18Overall, I regard your offending to be serious and concerning. At the time of your offending you were already subject to a grant of bail from the Melbourne Magistrates' Court from August in the preceding year. Of course one of the primary conditions of any grant of bail involves you refraining from reoffending. The fact that the offending for which you now fall to be sentenced occurred whilst subject to a court order to this effect represents an aggravating feature of your offending.
19Charge 1 on the indictment involves offences against the Firearms Act 1996. Whilst the number of firearms possessed by you just meets the trafficable quantity, which is two firearms, the primary purpose of the Firearms Act 1996 is to ensure public safety and peace through the appropriate licensing, permitting, registering and storage of firearms.[2] Given the protective purpose of this legislation, and the risks that attend the accumulation of such weapons and the difficulty of detection, general deterrence must loom large for offending of this nature.[3] Similarly with regards to your possession of the gel blaster which forms the basis of Charge 2 on the indictment, whilst the prosecution did not submit that there was any ongoing criminal activity to which the gel blaster was relevant,[4] pursuant to the consequences of your relevant criminal history you were a prohibited person with regards to possession of the gel blaster and your possession of it in these circumstances is concerning.
[2]Section 1 of the Firearms Act 1996
[3]Djemal v The Queen [2020] VSCA 25 at paragraph 24
[4]Pursuant to the principles articulated in Berichon v The Queen [2013] 40 VR 490 at 496
20Moreover, given the rather chaotic circumstances surrounding your conduct, particularly in the early hours of 28 February 2023 once police arrived on the scene at Westbury Close, with your driving conduct causing damage to a police vehicle and other parked vehicles in the vicinity with the boat becoming dislodged from the trailer and colliding with another parked vehicle before you drove away in the Nissan Patrol with a missing wheel, the fact that in your heavily drug-affected state[5] you then had in your possession a loaded pistol, and old shotgun and a gel blaster constitutes serious and highly concerning conduct from a public safety perspective. The presence of loose ammunition only increases the concerning nature of your conduct.
[5]Paragraph 4 of Exhibit A
21In relation to Charges 3 and 4 on the indictment, the monetary value of these items reflects the gravity of your offending. As I indicated during oral argument, theft of motor vehicle must be seen as a serious offence. Such items often represent significant assets for members of the community and theft of such valuable items frequently causes considerable inconvenience to the owner.
22Overall, as I have stated, whilst perhaps not representing the highest end of objective seriousness, the nature and gravity of your offending must be viewed as concerning.
Personal circumstances
23Your personal history has been set out in some detail in the various psychological reports tendered at your plea hearing: the report of Carla Ferrari dated 31 May 2018,[6] the report of Luke Armstrong dated 26 April 2024[7] and the most recent psychological report from Sandra Cokorilo dated 2 September 2024.[8] Your history was encapsulated in your counsel's written submissions dated 15 October 2024,[9] expanded upon in oral submissions before me.
[6]Exhibit D
[7]Exhibit C
[8]Exhibit B
[9] Exhibit A
24You are now 43 years of age. You were born in Victoria. Your mother apparently suffered from poor mental and physical health when you were young and consequently you were often in the care of your maternal grandparents as a child. Your father apparently perpetrated severe and frequent family violence against you and your mother which resulted in repeated police involvement.
25Your parents separated when you were 10. You and your sister were placed in foster care with separate families after living for periods with your maternal grandparents. You were apparently prevented from being placed into their care on an ongoing basis, following your parents' separation, due to the death of your grandfather.
26From there you apparently led a disjointed life, absconding from your foster family and experiencing homelessness until you returned to live with your father at the age of 12, he by then having repartnered. You apparently found this to be a difficult time where you struggled to adjust. In this period your sister was returned to your mother's care and you have reported having no contact again with your mother until the age of 19.
27Perhaps unsurprisingly your schooling was interrupted due to this instability. You ultimately completed Year 11 at TAFE level. You have reported subsequent employment in various areas, though this has been extremely limited since leaving high school. You have attributed your chronic unemployment primarily to your drug abuse, reporting that you last worked in traffic management for some months in 2022.
28You have reported a problematic substance-use history. You commenced heroin use at the age of 14 and you have reported being an intravenous user from the age of 15. Although you ceased heroin at the age of 18, you apparently replaced this substance with methamphetamine at that time before relapsing into heroin use between 2012 and 2018. You also have a history of ecstasy and cocaine use, overdosing on multiple occasions. You have reported previous engagement with court-mandated drug and alcohol counselling in the context of previous community correction orders, CISP bail, parole, and drug treatment orders in 2018 and 2020; however, these interventions have ultimately not succeeded in ridding you of your drug problems. You did attend a nine-month residential drug rehabilitation program in 2003, which led to a sustained period of abstinence before relapsing.
29As indicated by Ms Cokorilo in her recent psychological report, you present with an extensive criminal history between 1997 and 2022 with non-offending periods mostly limited to periods of incarceration. You reported to Ms Cokorilo serving more than 10 custodial terms, totalling 15 years, since the age of 18. As indicated by the prosecution in written submissions,[10] you have some 176 prior convictions for deception and fraud-based offending, multiple prior convictions for burglary and one prior conviction for aggravated burglary, 40 prior convictions for theft, which include 11 convictions for theft of motor vehicles or trailers and nine convictions for attempting to steal a motor vehicle, and various other property-related offending. You have prior convictions for drug-related offending, weapons, possession of a firearm, property damage, driving offences, endangering serious injury and offences against the Bail Act 1977. You have multiple prior convictions for trafficking drugs of dependence.
[10]Exhibit 2 at Paragraph 14
30On 3 March 2005 you were sentenced in this court to a total effective sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months for offending which included trafficking in a commercial quantity, trafficking and prohibited person possess a firearm. Having perused the reasons for sentence of His Honour Judge Morgan-Payler from that sentence on 3 March 2005,[11] you were sentenced to three years' imprisonment in relation to possession of three handguns, comprised of one loaded revolver and two small disguised and concealable weapons which were also loaded, these weapons located by police in close proximity to you, and other accoutrements of trafficking at the time of your arrest.
[11] Exhibit 4
31Your extensive and concerning criminal history is relevant to an assessment with regards to your prospects of rehabilitation. It is also relevant to the need for community protection. The need for any penalty to reflect the sentencing purpose of specific deterrence is also increased by virtue of your extensive criminal history. Clearly, previous penalties have not deterred you from engaging in serious criminality.
32Notwithstanding your counsel's submissions to the contrary, I have concluded that your relevant criminal history is also relevant to an assessment of your moral culpability for the current offending. Of course, your criminal history cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a sentence which is disproportionate to the gravity of the current offence.[12] Neither can you be punished effectively twice because of your troubling criminal history. However, whilst your criminal history does not represent an aggravating feature of your current offending, it is in my view relevant to an assessment of your moral culpability for the current offending. As the High Court has indicated, it is legitimate to take account of prior criminal activity when it illuminates the moral culpability of the offender in the instant case.[13] Moreover, as the Court of Appeal in this state has indicated, an offenders criminal antecedents are relevant:
'As indicators of his moral culpability, his prospects of rehabilitation, his dangerous propensities (and, concomitantly, the communities need for protection), and the increased importance of specific deterrence as a factor in sentencing.'[14]
[12]Veen v R (No 2) [1988] 164 CLR 467 at 477
[13]Veen v R (No 2) [1988] 164 CLR 465 at 477-478
[14]Stevens v The Queen [2021] VSCA 218 at paragraph 23, per Priest and Kennedy JA
33In your case, whilst clearly of some antiquity, in 2005 you received a significant sentence of imprisonment for offending which included you being a prohibited person possessing a loaded firearm. You must surely have known of the seriousness of such offending, due to the custodial sentence imposed. That you would offend again in such a serious manner, notwithstanding the significant punishment imposed upon you, in my view increases your level of culpability for the current offending.
Applicable sentencing factors
34I turn now to the various psychological reports tendered at your plea hearing and the impact of your psychological functioning on the sentencing exercise. Your counsel essentially submitted that the psychological material provided an evidentiary foundation for a reduction in your moral culpability due to the specific causal factors arising from your deprived background and the impact on your offending, often referred to as a specific Bugmy allowance, together with a submission that your impaired mental functioning triggered each of the well-known Verdins mental impairment principles.
35Having considered all three of the psychological reports tendered on your behalf, there is a degree of complexity arising from the differences of both opinion and emphasis expressed by the relevant authors. By way of example, whilst Ms Ferrari in 2018 refers to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder,[15] this diagnosis is not supported by the other experts. However, irrespective of the psychological labels ascribed, it is clear to me that you have endured a most difficult childhood and upbringing. As indicated by psychologist Luke Armstrong:
'His early experience of the family was completely unravelled by his mother's psychiatric problems and probable opioid addiction; as well as a violent, unpredictable gambler as a father figure. His experience of attachments was severely disrupted, combined with a reactive temperament, Mr Soulieman soon displayed some very disturbing behaviours of his own.'[16]
[15] Exhibit D
[16] Page 8
36Mr Armstrong refers to the legacy of your dysfunctional and traumatic childhood thus:
'Mr Soulieman's experience of the family was traumatic and I would suggest the experience of this trauma has defined him as an individual.'[17]
Furthermore Mr Armstrong states:
'Mr Soulieman experienced a family setting that, in contrast to nurturance and predictability, was defined by unpredictable violence and two primary care givers who were unable to provide any semblance of a corrective attachment … this inability to provide a predictable family environment had a profound and defining effect on the development of Mr Soulieman's personality.'[18]
[17]Page 7
[18]Page 9
37In my view, these sentiments give rise to what is often referred to as the general Bugmy allowance, a reduction in your moral culpability for the offending due to your experience of profound dysfunction, disadvantage and abuse during your formative years such that your culpability for the offending could not be equated with that of a person who committed such offending but had had the advantage of a normal, stable and regular home environment during your formative years.[19]
[19]DPP (Vic) v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160 at paragraph 41
38According to Mr Armstrong, in light of your difficult upbringing you were a child with conduct disorder prior to the age of 15 years and Mr Armstrong did not contest a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, with this trajectory of psychopathology leaving you at high risk for an antisocial personality disorder as an adult.[20] Unsurprisingly, given your long history of illicit substance use, all experts have diagnosed you with a stimulant-use disorder at the time of your offending. According to Mr Armstrong, in the period leading up to your offending you were suffering a stimulant-use disorder which was entangled with a severe personality disorder, namely an antisocial personality disorder. According to Mr Armstrong your experience of ongoing ADHD symptoms likely aggravated your experience of drug addiction.[21] In her report, in addition to confirming these diagnoses, Ms Cokorilo appeared to place a greater emphasis on the impacts of ADHD in relation to your offending. According to Ms Cokorilo your history of untreated ADHD results in:
'Reckless impulsivity and poor judgement which have contributed to his undermining his ability to think clearly, respond calmly and exercise appropriate judgement.'[22]
[20]Page 9
[21]Page 9
[22]Paragraph 98 of Ms Cokorilo’s report
39According to Ms Cokorilo, ADHD can predispose an individual to involvement in criminal offences due to inherent impulsivity, cognitive and behavioural dyscontrol, emotional regulation issues, risk-taking behaviour, difficulty dealing with stress, anger-management problems, and executive functioning deficits which lead to problems with considering and weighing up consequences of behaviour. You reported to Ms Cokorilo that you offended because you focussed on desired outcome without due consideration of the consequences of your actions.[23]
[23]Paragraph 98
40Given your significant and long-standing difficulties with regards to your substance use disorder, it is difficult in my view to disentangle the effects of drug intoxication and your psychological functioning at the time of your offending. The prosecution in this case in supplementary written submissions[24] conceded that Verdins limb 1 may be enlivened on the material before the court. I agree. In my view, a mitigatory allowance is warranted by virtue of Verdins limb 1, given the evidence which indicates that your personality disorder or disorders were entrenched prior to your severe drug addiction and impacted upon your decision-making at the time of your offending, such that your moral culpability is reduced somewhat. Given the complexities associated with the evidence in this case, I am not satisfied, however, that a further mitigatory allowance is warranted pursuant to the other Verdins principles.
[24]Prosecution supplementary submissions on sentence dated 21 October 2024
41In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case I have made a mitigatory allowance by virtue of your plea of guilty. As indicated by your counsel in written submissions, whilst not entered at the earliest possible stage, your plea is facilitative of the course of justice and is of mitigatory weight. This matter did not proceed as a contested committal where witnesses would have been required to give evidence.
42Your counsel did not submit in either written or oral submissions that a further mitigatory allowance was warranted due to remorse on your part. It occurs to me that your psychological make-up may well impede true insight on your part with regards to the consequences of your serious criminality in this case. However, I note your expressions to psychologist Sandra Cokorilo that you regret the offending and that it would have been frightening for others when the boat came unstuck on the road and you also recognised the negative impacts on the victims whose possessions you stole. In those circumstances, I am prepared to make a modest mitigatory allowance due to the level of insight expressed by you. To some degree this mitigates the need for any penalty to specifically deter you, given your insight, and to a degree your expressions inform an assessment as to your prospects for rehabilitation.
43I accept that a period exceeding 19 months has passed between your offending and the date of sentencing. You have remained in custody throughout this period. Some of that time is attributable to the sentence imposed at the Magistrates' Court on 9 October 2024 of 120 days' imprisonment. There are 511 days pre-sentence detention attributable to the matter now before me. On any view this is an extended period of time to have a significant matter hanging over your head and a mitigatory allowance due to this understandable anxiety is warranted. However, this period does not in my view constitute an inordinate delay which would otherwise trigger a more meaningful mitigatory allowance.
44Furthermore, it cannot be said that you have meaningfully rehabilitated whilst in custody, given your admitted use of substances whilst in the custodial setting. However, as I have stated, I am aware of the particular hardships of your extended time in custody, given your family circumstances. Your long-term partner of some 22 years has battled with crisis accommodation in recent times, and you have been separated from both her and your children, aged between 18 and two. Notwithstanding a complex relationship dynamic, I understand that you reconnected with your father late in life and unfortunately, he has passed away whilst you have been in custody, which has no doubt accentuated your hardship in custody.
45Given your extensive and troubling criminal history, together with the serious nature of your offending, it is difficult to find your prospects of rehabilitation to be anything other than challenging or guarded. Multiple attempts at court-mandated rehabilitation have been unsuccessful, though you appear to have completed your most recent drug treatment order in the Magistrates' Court, this order being imposed on 23 March 2020. However, the fact remains that that intervention did not prevent further offending by you. Given your relevant prior conviction from 2005, I remain troubled by the possession by you of a loaded gun in the course of your offending on 28 February 2023. I am also troubled by your admitted illicit substance use whilst in custody. Perhaps unsurprisingly psychologist Sandra Cokorilo refers to your risk of general reoffending being high.[25]
[25]Paragraph 65
46However, I accept that you maintain the love and support of your long-time partner Yasmin, who has followed these court proceedings. You have two daughters aged approximately 18 and two and a son aged four to this 22‑year relationship and I acknowledge that collectively these individuals represent considerable motivation for you to ultimately rehabilitate upon your re-entry into the community. It is clear though that you will need specialist supports to assist in your ultimate reintegration and in my view a parole eligibility component to the sentence I will shortly impose will facilitate that occurring.
47In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case I have had regard to the matters set out in s5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991. I have had regard to current sentencing practices for the offences for which you now fall to be sentenced and I note the table of cases provided by the prosecution in that regard, noting that current sentencing practices are but one of the many relevant factors to sentencing and no one factor should dominate the others. Of course, necessarily, each case is fact specific.
48In sentencing you I have had regard to the principle of totality both with regards to the sentence recently imposed upon you and the discrete offences for which you now fall to be sentenced.
49Ultimately, consistent with the parsimony principle, I have determined that nothing short of a sentence of imprisonment incorporating a head sentence and non-parole period is appropriate in your case.
50Mr Soulieman, I now come to the portion of my remarks where I announce the sentence or sentences to be imposed.
Sentence to be imposed
51On Charge 1 on the indictment, unauthorised possession of a trafficable quantity of firearms, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
52On Charge 2 on the indictment, prohibited person possess an imitation firearm, you are convicted and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.
53On Charge 3 on the indictment, theft, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
54On Charge 4 on the indictment, theft, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
55On the related summary offence of possessing ammunition without a licence you are convicted and fined $800.
56On the related summary offence of committing an indictable offence whist on bail you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
57On the related summary offence of possess controlled weapon without excuse you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
58On the related summary offence of failing to stop vehicle after an accident you are convicted and fined $500.
59On the related summary offence of careless driving you are convicted and fined $300.
60I order that four months on Charge 2, four months on Charge 3 and four months on Charge 4 be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the base sentence imposed on Charge 1 on the indictment, making a total effective sentence of three years' imprisonment.
61I order that you serve a period of two years and two months' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
62Pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991 I declare a period of 511 days has been served by way of pre-sentence detention and I order that this period be administratively deducted from the sentence imposed.
63Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 I declare that had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty at trial I would have imposed a total effective sentence of four years and two months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years' imprisonment.
64I make the forfeiture order sought by the prosecution.
65Finally, with regards to the charge of theft of motor vehicle, any driver's licence held by you is cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining another for a period of two years from today's date. I make that order pursuant to s89(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
66Ms Worrell, firstly, any issues or ambiguities with regards to the sentence?
67MS WORRELL: No, Your Honour, thank you.
68HIS HONOUR: Thanks. Ms Jansen, anything?
69MR JANSEN: No, Your Honour.
---
0
5
0