Director of Public Prosecutions v Coleman, Craig
[2011] VCC 546
•13 May 2011
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-11-00115
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CRAIG COLEMAN |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE MILLANE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 April, 10 & 11 May 2011 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 13 May 2011 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Coleman, Craig | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2011] VCC 546 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: Sexual penetration of a child under 16 years (3 charges) - indecent act with a child under 16 years (4 charges) – 3 year old victim – serious sexual offender – current sentencing practices
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | M Zammit | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Chris McLennan | Chris McLennan & Co |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
1 Mr Coleman please remain seated. I will ask you to stand when I am ready to sentence.
2 You have plead guilty to three charges of sexual penetration of a child under 12 years. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is 25 years’ imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to four charges of indecent act with a child under 16 years. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is ten years’ imprisonment.
Antecedents
3 You are 28 years of age with no prior history of offending. However, it appears from the evidence and materials before me that you probably were a victim of sexual abuse at a young age by a family member. Your memory and description of these events is somewhat limited. I will discuss these and other matters personal to you in more detail shortly.
The circumstances of the offending
4 The prosecution’s opening (as amended) was read into transcript and tendered as an agreed summary of the facts. I do not propose to repeat all of the matters outlined in that summary.
5 The complainant was born in July 2007. She was aged between two years and nine months and three years and three months at the time of the commission of these offences.
6 You and your family were friends of the complainant’s parents, having met at a suburban Christian Centre.
7 In 2010, you, with your wife and infant son all moved to another address.
8 As to Charge 1 – sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, on an occasion between 17 March 2010 and 20 October 2010, your wife and the complainant’s mother went shopping. You babysat three children at your first premises: the complainant, her older brother, then aged about four years and six months, and your son, then about 18 months old. As a family friend you were entrusted with the care of the complainant and her brother.
9 I was told that as the children watched a DVD, the complainant sat on your lap. At the time she was wearing a dress and straddled one of your legs with her back against your chest. You placed your hand under her dress and inside her underpants, penetrated her vagina and used your fingers to rub this child’s clitoris. When interviewed by police on 8 November 2010, you told them that this continued for a minute and you attributed the conduct to an overwhelming lust and your desire to please the child.
10 As to Charge 2 – sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, on the afternoon of 21 October 2010, the complainant’s mother and your wife again went shopping whilst you babysat the three children, this time at your new address.
11 You put a children’s DVD on the television and, whilst the boys played with toys on the floor of the lounge room, you sat on the couch with the complainant sitting on your lap. She was wearing a skirt and straddled one of your legs with her back leaning against your chest as she watched the DVD.
12 Whilst both boys were present you placed your hand under the complainant’s skirt and inside her underpants. You then penetrated her vagina with your fingers and again rubbed her clitoris. You told police that this lasted five minutes during which time you asked the child “Do you like that?”
13 As to Charge 3 – sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, at your instigation you and the complainant went to your bedroom where you shut the door leaving the two boys playing in the lounge room.
14 You placed the complainant on her back on your bed and removed her underpants. Whilst holding her legs apart you licked her vagina until she wriggled and said it tickled. There was an interval before you resumed licking the complainant's vagina, by your account, a further five times.
15 As to Charge 4 – indecent act with a child under 16 years, you then said “Do you want to see mine?”, you removed your penis from your shorts and masturbated in the presence of this child.
16 As to Charge 5 - indecent act with a child under 16 years, this involved instruction on how to masturbate your penis which included telling the complainant - “This is how you grab it”; “you shake it like this”, “this is what you do.”
17 Apparently, mimicking your actions, over a period of about one minute, the complainant, removed and replaced her hand about ten times. During this period you encouraged this activity by telling the complainant that it felt “.. really good.”
18 As to Charge 6 - indecent act with a child under 16 years, you then invited the child to suck your penis: “like a lollipop” which she refused. Undeterred you asked the complainant to lick your penis and you stood next to the bed as she knelt and licked the tip of your penis. Of this incident you told police that you had felt excited when the complainant licked your penis.
19 As to Charge 7 - indecent act with a child under 16 years, you then laid the child on her back and masturbated on her stomach. You wiped off the ejaculate, put her underpants back on and returned with the complainant to the lounge room.
20 On the evening of 21 October 2010, the complainant informed her mother that you took her “undies off”, that you had told her that she could not say anything because this was a secret and that you had instructed her not to tell - “mummy’s, daddy’s or brothers.”
21 The complainant was examined by a doctor at the Royal Children’s Hospital on 5 November 2010. The genital examination findings were normal. However, as the doctor reported, this finding did "not mean that the alleged abuse did not happen.”
22 After the matter was reported to police a search warrant was executed at your premises. A handwritten journal was located with an entry for 24 October 2010 in which you recorded: “What have I done…. On Thursday the 21st I sexly did things with a 3 year old Girl that I was babysitting!!! "
23 When interviewed by police on 8 November 2010, you made full admissions. The admissions made have spared the very young complainant from the further ordeal of having to communicate with police about these matters and the need to participate in the making of a VATE recording. Moreover, the prosecution has conceded that evidence for the charges, other than Charge 5, an indecent act charge, was obtained from the admissions made during the record of interview.
24 I have rejected as untenable the prosecution’s submission that the failure to report that you were accessing child pornography, whether to your church counsellors or to treating doctors, constitutes an aggravating feature of this offending. It certainly provides the context in which you offended and it is an indication of the progression of your deviant behaviour from viewing child pornography to contact offences.
25 The fact that when you babysat on the second occasion you may have believed, as you said you did, that you were able to control your deviant behaviour, but failed to do so, is nevertheless relevant to the assessment of the level of your risk of reoffending and your prospects of rehabilitation.
26 Whilst some of the offending occurred in their presence, there is no evidence that the other children actually witnessed the abuse.
27 However, I accept as accurate the prosecution's submission that relevant sentencing considerations must also include the complainant’s greater vulnerability due to her very young age, the significant breach of trust because at the time, as the children's babysitter, you were acting in a parental or guardianship role[1] and the escalation of the contact offending against the complainant during the second, albeit short, episode of further abuse on 21 October 2010.
[1]DPP v VH (2004) 10 VR 234 at 237-8.
28 The impact on the complainant and her family is a significant sentencing consideration to which I next turn. This was summarised in the victim impact statement submitted by the complainant's mother. As this was read in open court I don't propose to repeat its content in full. Suffice to say that the complainant's parents, who trusted you as a family friend, have been deeply traumatised by this experience and by their concern about the long-term impact of sexual abuse on their young daughter.
29 Notwithstanding the absence of evidence of physical injury, allowing for her mother's account, I accept that the psychological consequences of this experience are ongoing. For instance, she said that in the weeks following the abuse the complainant apparently referred to the incident and touched herself inappropriately. Her mother also reported that the complainant is withdrawn and fearful and her experience has engendered mistrust of men, a circumstance that has changed the complainant’s relationship with her grandfathers.
30 Sadly, the circumstances of this complainant and her family are a further reminder of the likely profound and potentially destructive impact of sexual abuse on children and the significant damage occasioned to their families, not to mention the wider community.[2]
[2]See WCB v The Queen [2010] VSCA 230 [36] and [40].
Personal Circumstances
31 Your personal circumstances have been summarised in counsel's submissions, the report of forensic psychologist, Dr. Cunningham who assessed you at the Metropolitan Remand Centre on 7 April 2011 and in the pre-sentence clinical assessment report prepared by Interventions Pathway psychologist, Ms Swan, following her assessment on 14 April 2011, also at the Metropolitan Remand Centre. The pre-sentence report was ordered by me on the first plea hearing date. Where necessary I will comment on any differences between the expert reports.
32 Letters written by your wife and by an aunt and a document in which you outline your goals and strategies were also tendered on the adjourned plea hearing date. In her letter your aunt states that a family member had confessed that one night whilst babysitting, he fondled you. You were about age five and believed to be asleep at the time. She also states that you were baffled and refused to discuss this when told of this event at about age 15.
33 Amongst other things, in her letters, your wife expresses her ongoing support for you. She knows you as a kind and loving person who has struggled with depression and what she called "sex addiction". She also states that when dating in 2004, you had disclosed to her past sexual abuse by a family member.
34 I was told that you were born in New Zealand and that you and your younger sisters were raised by both parents until they divorced when you were seven years of age. You have described a chaotic childhood due to your mother's bipolar disorder and an emotionally abusive father.
35 However, other than at age 17 spending a short period living with your father, you remained in your family home until aged 21. You had a religious upbringing in the Pentecostal Church of which you are still a member.
36 Between the ages of 12 and 15, difficulties relating to other children and reported learning difficulties prompted your mother to home school you. However, at age 15 you returned to school and subsequently completed years 11 and 12. Whatever educational difficulties you experienced in your earlier years, the results of recent psychometric testing by Dr. Cunningham indicate cognitive functioning in the superior range of intelligence.
37 After leaving school you spent four years as an apprentice electrician following which you kept moving between jobs as an electrician due to boredom. You married at age 21 and, with your wife, you eventually relocated in Melbourne where you continued to work as an electrician. It appears that due to depression you ceased employment in 2009. According to Dr Cunningham’s report, this depression involved difficulty sleeping, fatigue, psychomotor retardation and difficulty thinking and concentrating.
38 Your only significant relationship is with your wife who you met through the Pentecostal church of which she too is a member.
39 You have a two-year-old son. I was told that due to financial difficulties, your wife has returned with him to live in New Zealand. She will give birth to another son in the next few months. You remain in regular contact with them and after receiving offence specific treatment and completing your sentence, you envisage joining them.
40 Bearing in mind your assessed level of risk and the need for you to undertake high intensity sex offender program interventions, I consider your stated goal of assisting others with sexual problems through counselling and writing a book about this as probably unrealistic.
41 Your psychosexual and mental health histories are complex.
42 Your first experience of pornography was at age 13 when you saw a magazine of your fathers depicting male and female adults engaged in sex. You repeatedly refer to sex addiction involving from age 17 using internet pornography daily in an addictive fashion to relieve anxiety and to aid in masturbation. This pattern may have altered to some extent following your marriage, although the impression I formed was that you preferred this to marital sexual relations. Accessing adult pornography continued until, by your account, at age 26, you became "desensitised" to this and sought out child pornography. At first, this involved cartoon sexual behaviour between adult and child cartoon characters. You then progressed to viewing pornographic images of children, some of which involve molestation similar to the abuse to which you subjected the complainant. Notwithstanding your reported feelings of guilt and disgust, you nevertheless felt aroused by child pornography and have fantasies involving children, although you deny any sexual arousal toward male children.
43 You have a reported history of depression since childhood, first diagnosed by a general practitioner at about the age of 21 and treated with antidepressant medication for two years until you felt better. Ms Swan was also told that about a year ago a psychiatrist, Dr Kumar, diagnosed anxiety. On an adjourned plea hearing date, I was told that when you came to Australia at age 24 you had been prescribed Effexor, an antidepressant medication. However, after your general practitioner referred you to him for treatment of work-related depression, Dr. Kumar increased the dosage of this medication. By your account embarrassment prevented you from revealing any addiction to pornography either to your GP or to the psychiatrist. I infer from these matters that you revealed nothing to them about problems in your sexual behaviour.
44 It appears that from age 24, the main source of your diagnosis, treatment and support in dealing with any mental health or sexual problems has come from counsellors associated with your church’s religious treatment service, Crossway Counselling Services, and from your pastor. The latter also attended Court on the first plea hearing date. I was also told that one of your counsellors is a regular visitor to the Remand Centre.
45 I am unable to determine what, if any, qualification or experience your pastor or the counsellors with whom you consulted and continue to consult have to diagnose the conditions reported by you or to treat mental health and sexual problems.
46 Nevertheless, it seems that you commenced with counselling for depression and anxiety. Subsequently, you were referred to another counsellor to assist you with depression, childhood trauma and sex addiction. The second counsellor reportedly diagnosed a condition you named as "Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)" and, at 27 years of age, in the months preceding the offending, you were referred to a male counsellor for further assistance with sex addiction due to your increased use of internet pornography.
47 The sex addiction for which you received counselling involved your addiction to adult pornography as by your account at no stage did you disclose to the counsellors or to your wife your interest, commencing in the year preceding the commission of the first offence, in child pornography to the exclusion of adult pornography. You also attribute the failure to disclose this problem to feelings of embarrassment and shame.
48 It was Ms Swan who was given a history to the effect that a counsellor from Crossways had diagnosed DID, a disorder you attributed to childhood trauma. Apparently, your wife had earlier been diagnosed with the same disorder which, from the description given by you to Ms Swan, involves multiple personalities and symptoms including memory loss, loss of time, identity confusion, changing emotions, changing thoughts, thinking you are someone else and alternative personalities.
49 Both in the account given to Dr Cunningham and the evidence given by you at the plea hearing you reported that, prior to the earliest of these offences, the counselling through Crossways had helped you recall portions of your childhood involving sexual abuse at an early age by an elderly woman and up to age 12 by a family member who was a babysitter.
50 Ms Swan appears to have received an account of earlier sexual abuse involving only a family member. As I have already noted the correspondence tendered from both an aunt and your wife helps corroborate your claim that you were sexually abused by a family member. It makes no mention of any elderly woman, nevertheless, as I have said, it points to abuse from as early as age five, although this abuse was never reported to or investigated by police.
51 Dr Cunningham links your reported memory loss and the depression from which you suffer to your history of sexual abuse trauma.
52 Due to your deviant arousing fantasies and your sexual urges involving prepubescent children and these offences, in Dr Cunningham’s opinion, you meet the diagnostic criteria for paedophilia. However, he also believes that sexual abuse trauma, depression and features of a development disorder with schizoid tendencies underlie your sexual deviancy. In terms of the risk of sexual reoffending, after administering the Sexual Violence Risk Scale (SVR – 20), he concluded that this was moderate. However, through your counsel you have accepted that Ms Swan’s assessment of the risk as being high, involving as it did a combined actuarial risk assessment and her structured professional judgment, the latter employing the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol guidelines, probably represents a more reliable overall risk assessment. In other words, you present with a high risk of re-offending.
53 Having considered the many matters to which Ms Swan referred in her lengthy report I note that she saw evidence of:
· a lack of self-awareness and limited insight regarding your responsibility for the offending because you repeatedly attributed this to childhood sexual abuse, poor parenting and what you called your "sex addiction";
· persistent and chronic non-contact sexual violence through your daily access to child pornography in the period preceding the offending;
· both diversity in and escalation of sexual violence, in that you progressed from viewing child pornography to contact offending involving the commission of penetration and indecent act offences;
· severe cognitive distortions around the complainant's compliance in the offending to which Ms Swan thought your mental health issues have likely contributed;
· sexual deviancy toward female children;
· severe problems with intimate relationships;
· no realistic pro-social plans;
· a strong willingness to participate in sex offender treatment;
· some victim empathy; and
· a tendency to use sex to cope when you experienced stressful or negative mood states.
54 Ms Swan considered you suitable for a prison-based sex offender and specific treatment program involving high intensity interventions and case management. She also recommended a full psychiatric assessment to clarify any mental health issues and diagnoses.
Mitigatory Factors
55 In addition to the sentencing discount for the admissions made, I have also substantially discounted your sentence to allow for the plea of guilty entered at the earliest opportunity. Through this plea you have spared the complainant and her family the likely further trauma of pursuing justice for these crimes and the community the cost of a contested trial. As I was reminded by the prosecution, the Court of Appeal in WCB v R[3] has emphasised the particular value of a plea of guilty and the discount given in cases involving sexual offences because this kind of offending is notoriously difficult to prove and the plea typically enhances the victim's prospects of recovery. Moreover, by substantially discounting the sentence in these cases, offenders who have committed similar crimes are encouraged to acknowledge their guilt.
[3][2010] VSCA 230.
56 Your admissions and plea indicate remorse, as do your expressions of remorse both in court and through others. In this regard I accept that you are probably genuinely remorseful, that you demonstrate an awareness of the wrongfulness of your behaviour and its likely consequences for the complainant and her family, and that you appear strongly motivated to engage in therapeutic interventions to address your sexual deviancy and the risk of reoffending.
57 At this juncture your prospects of rehabilitation probably depend on the extent to which you are involved in the offence specific treatment Ms Swan has recommended, your capacity to implement strategies in the future to contain a strong sexual deviancy toward female children and on you developing realistic goals for the future.
Sentencing considerations
58 Under the serious sex offenders provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991, on your conviction and sentence to a term of imprisonment on two sexual offence charges, I am required on the charges thereafter to regard the protection of the community from you as the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed. If necessary, in order to achieve the purpose of protecting the community, I am empowered by s 6D of the Act to impose a sentence greater than is proportionate. This means that in accordance with the provisions any sentencing task in respect to charges 3 to 7 inclusive on the indictment is to be undertaken on the basis that the protection of the community from you is the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed. To achieve that purpose a sentence may be imposed longer than that which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence, considered in the light of the objective circumstances.
59 Relevantly, notwithstanding the assessment that the risk of reoffending likely involving indecent touching, digital and oral penetration of female children is high, the prosecution did not seek a disproportionate sentence. Factors such as the absence of prior offending, the likely opportunity for you to undergo, as recommended, high intensity intervention within a sex offender program whilst in custody and your apparent motivation to do this, suggest that this is a case where the application of the principle of proportionality adequately covers protection of the community as a sentencing consideration.[4]
[4]See R v LD [2009] VSCA 311 at 25.
60 Section 6E also requires that unless I otherwise direct, with respect to charges 3 to 7 inclusive, the sentences imposed are to be served cumulatively. This statutory presumption of cumulation does not totally abrogate the principle of totality, although in determining whether to exercise a discretion against total cumulation, I am nevertheless required to give proper recognition to the statutory presumption.
61 The prosecution did not call for total cumulation of the sentences on charges 3 to 7 inclusive. Allowing for all the matters I have already outlined, in my view, it is appropriate to only impose the degree of cumulation to which I subsequently refer, reflecting as it does the totality of your criminality. For the purpose of this sentence I have treated the sentence for the lingual sexual penetration offence committed during the second and last episode of offending (charge 3), as the base sentence. I have allowed for substantial concurrency between charges 1 and 2 on the indictment, the separate digital penetration offences committed during two incidents. However, as to the charges for which you are sentenced as a serious sexual offender, I have tailored the cumulation to reflect the fact that each of these offences occurred during the second episode of offending.
62 As required by sub-section 5(2BC) of the Sentencing Act, in sentencing you I have ignored the consequences that may arise, and in your case do arise, under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 from the imposition of this sentence today. In other words, the reporting burden you carry as a registered sex offender is not a matter that can objectively influence the imposition of a just sentence today. I will deal with the registration issues shortly.
63 On your behalf, it was accepted that the objective seriousness of this offending warrants the imposition of an immediate term of imprisonment, although through your counsel, I was urged to impose a sentence at the lower end of the range to reflect the various mitigatory factors I have already summarised.
64 The sentence imposed today must show the community's condemnation of conduct that exploits and abuses the vulnerability of children aged three and under. To the extent that this is possible, it must act as a deterrent both to others with a tendency to sexual deviancy involving young children and to you.
65 The prosecution submitted that in this case the appropriate sentencing range falls between eight and ten years' imprisonment, with a minimum of between six and eight years' imprisonment. As you know, I adjourned the plea hearing to allow the prosecutor to clarify her instructions on whether the range submitted was within current sentencing practices.
66 Whilst maintaining her submission as to the appropriate range, following the adjournment, the prosecution submitted a table in which a number of recent cases were compared. As it turned out this table contained a number of inaccuracies. Nevertheless, it provided me with a list of some comparable cases. These cases and the sentencing snapshot statistics for sexual penetration of a child under 10 published in 2009, the latter of which indicates a median length of imprisonment of three an a half years, are of limited assistance because your sentence must be structured to accommodate the circumstances of this particular case.
67 As was acknowledged in court, the prosecution did not seek a sentence beyond current sentencing practices. Insofar as this appeared to involve some comparison with other sentences and to reflect current sentencing practices, I was told that whereas in this case there are seven charges, a sentence at the top end of the range submitted, that is up to ten years' imprisonment, was justified when allowance is made for appropriate cumulation. However, in my view, where multiple charges are involved, six of which arise out of the same course of conduct, and, as in this case, the discretion not to totally cumulate is exercised, it must follow that the principle of totality has a more active role to play in determining the extent of the cumulation involved.
68 I note that the base sentence imposed in comparable plea cases to which the prosecution's table refers were, in DPP v CPD[5] three years for lingual penetration of a six year old, in R v Iles[6] four years for penile/vaginal penetration of an eight to nine year old, in WCB[7] six years for penile/vaginal penetration of a ten year old and in Hall v R[8] five years for oral penetration of an eight to 12 year old. Relevantly the last of these was a representative count where the maximum penalty was 20, not 25 years imprisonment.
[5][2009] VSCA 114.
[6][2009] VSCA 197.
[7][2010] VSCA 230.
[8][2010] VSCA 349.
69 The CPD and WCB cases both involved two victims. At 38 years of age CPD had no relevant prior history. The second victim of his offending was the three-year-old sibling. There were four representative and two discrete counts involving four sexual penetration and two indecent act offences within a one-year period. He was a friend of the family who was babysitting these children in his own home.
70 An aggravating feature of CPD's offending was that he knowingly took advantage of the girl's vulnerability in circumstances where they had been previously sexually abused by another man and they were acting out sexualised behaviour. However, CPD was assessed as posing a moderate risk of reoffending.
71 The offending involving the three-year-old consisted of a representative lingual penetration count (the base sentence) and a discrete digital penetration count for which CPD was sentenced to three years and two years' imprisonment respectively. The indecent touching of the three-year-old’s vagina was also a representative count for which an 18 month sentence was imposed.
72 The sentence for the six year old sibling involved three years each on representative and discrete counts of lingual penetration and two years on a representative indecent touching of CPD’s penis count.
73 In WCB the 66 your old offender had no relevant prior convictions. There were two victims, a ten year old and her eight year old school friend. WCB was diagnosed a paedophile who, without stating the level of this, was said to pose a risk of sexual reoffending against under-aged and prepubescent females. He demonstrated a lack of concern for his victims and limited remorse for his offending.
74 The older child regularly visited and stayed in WCB's home. Over a period of approximately one week he committed three offences, the first when, after bathing the ten year old, he briefly penetrated her vagina with his penis. She complained that it hurt and medical examination revealed trauma to her vagina. A base sentence of six years' imprisonment was imposed on the sexual penetration offence with 12 months and 18 months imprisonment on each of the indecent act offences.
75 As is apparent from my brief summaries, if a comparison is to be made, CPD most closely resembles your case. However, as far as I can tell, there appear to be few sentences involving children under the age of three. Hopefully, this is a reflection of the rarity of sexual offending against these most vulnerable members of our society.
76 Your conduct was opportunistic and you currently represent a high risk of reoffending. These are matters which emphasise deterrence as a sentencing consideration. However, allowing for all of the matters argued in mitigation, the duration of the offending, the absence of evidence of planning or preparation and the context in which it occurred, I was not satisfied that this offending should be categorised as offending at the higher end of the range for penetration and indecent act offences against very young children. The sentence, nevertheless, is a significant sentence because it takes into account the higher maximum penalty applicable to the three sexual penetration offences committed over two episodes of offending.
Sentence
77 Please stand, Mr Coleman.
78 On charge 1, a digital penetration offence, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
79 On charge 2, the second digital penetration offence, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
80 On charge 3, the lingual penetration offence and, for the purpose of this sentence, the base sentence, you are convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
81 On charge 4, and indecent act offence, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
82 On each of charges 5, 6 and 7, further indecent act offences, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
83 I direct that six months of each of the sentences imposed on charges 1 and 2 and four months of the sentence imposed on charge 4 and eight months of each of the sentences imposed on charges 5, 6 and 7 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on charge 3 and on each other.
84 The total effective sentence is seven years and four months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and 11 months' imprisonment. This sentence starts today.
85 Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act I indicate that, but for your plea of guilty, a sentence of nine years and nine months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and six months' imprisonment would have been imposed.
86 Pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act, I declare that the period of 186 days is to be reckoned as time already served under the sentence, and I direct that the fact of this declaration and its details be recorded in the records of the Court.
87 I direct that pursuant to s 6F of the Sentencing Act there be entered into the records of the Court that I have sentenced you in respect of charges 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 as a serious sexual offender within the meaning of that Act.
88 All of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty are registrable offences pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. By reason of your convictions for these offences you are registrable as a sex offender obliged to comply with reporting obligations imposed by that Act.
89 According to that Act charges 1, 2 and 3 are Class 1 offences and charges 4, 5, 6 and 7 are Class 2 offences. However, as charges 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 all relate to offending from the same incident, they are classified as a single Class 1 offence. Consequently, you have pleaded guilty to two Class 1 offences, which means that you are required to comply with the reporting conditions for life.
90 Section 50 of that Act requires that you be given written notice of the reporting obligations and the consequences that may arise if you fail to comply with these obligations. I am also required to inform you of the length of the reporting period which in your case is, as I have already indicated, for the rest of your life. Shortly my associate will hand you the notification of reporting obligations which I have already signed. Your representative, Mr McLennan, will ensure that you understand the requirements set out in this form. Please sign the form to acknowledge that you have received the notification and return the signed acknowledgement to my associate.
91 Before I ask them to approach you in the dock, I will deal with the application pursuant to s 464ZF of the Crimes Act pursuant to which the prosecution sought an order for the taking of a forensic sample. I have acceded to the application and, in doing so, I have taken into account the seriousness of the circumstances of the offending, the fact that the application was not opposed and the interest the public has in obtaining such a sample. I have signed that order. I must also caution you that a member of the police force may use reasonable force to enable this procedure to be conducted.
92 I will ask my associate and Mr McLennan to approach you in the dock with the notification form to be signed.
93 MR McLENNAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
94 HER HONOUR: Are there any other matters I need to deal with counsel?
95 MS NILSSON: No other matters, Your Honour.
96 MR McLENNAN: No, Your Honour.
97 HER HONOUR: Very well. Thank you for your assistance today. Copies of those orders will be given to you when I rise.
98 MS NILSSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
99 HER HONOUR: Would you please remove Mr Coleman?
---
0
7
0