Director of Public Prosecutions v Cross (a pseudonym)
[2023] VCC 126
•8 February 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ZACHARY CROSS (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE TODD | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1 February 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 February 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Cross (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 126 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: | CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE |
Catchwords: | Plea of not guilty – found guilty at trial by majority verdict – five charges incest – three charges committing an indecent act with a child – effect of previous childhood sexual abuse – question of delay – post-Dalgliesh sentencing practices. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act1958 (Vic) ss 44(1), 47(1) |
Cases Cited: | Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; DPP v Dalgliesh (2018) 349 ALR 1; DPP v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym)[2016] VSCA 148; Geoffrey Boxer (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 300; DPP v Nenna(a pseudonym) [2022] VCC 1550; R v AWF (2000) 2 VR 1; 4; Zhao v The Queen [2018] VSCA 267; DPP v Howard [2021] VSCA 298. |
Sentence: | Imprisonment for a term of 13 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 9 years; lifetime registration as a Sex Offender. |
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms F. Martin | Lauren Catanzariti |
| For the Accused | Mr. R. Barton | Sharon Healey |
HER HONOUR:
1
After a trial lasting approximately 10 days, (including two jury empanelments on account of the first jury's discharge for reasons not connected to you) on
12 September 2022 the jury found you guilty you of all charges on the indictment: 5 counts of incest and 3 counts of committing an indecent act with a child under 16. The eight charges arise over six incidents of sexual misconduct. The complainant was your biological daughter, Stephanie.
2You now fall to be sentenced for these offences. I will first set out the factual basis of your offending that is the background to my sentencing task.
3
Before I do so, I note the maximum penalty for incest is 25 years' imprisonment;[1] the maximum penalty for committing an indecent act with a child under 16 is
ten years' imprisonment.[2]
[1]Crimes Act1958 (Vic) s 44(1) as amended by the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1991 (Vic).
[2]Crimes Act1958 (Vic) s 47(1) as amended by the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 (Vic).
Circumstances of Offending
4
On the plea hearing, a summary of the facts was read and tendered. In sentencing you, I am bound by the principles in the case of Cheung v The Queen.[3] For the purposes of this sentence, I adopt the facts that are consistent with the jury's verdict. The jury clearly rejected your denials of the offending and accepted Stephanie Nicholls’ evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, proving each of the
eight charges on the indictment.
[3]Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1.
5
I will also sentence you on the basis of the additional facts which
Stephanie Nicholls attested for the context of the offending. Where such a matter is aggravating, I will not adopt that fact unless I am satisfied of it beyond reasonable doubt.
6Between 2013 and 2017 you lived with your partner of 17 years, Meagan Nicholls, and your four children, including Stephanie. There were problems in the relationship, and you spent time living elsewhere, but often returned to live in the family home, either in Sunshine West or later in Hoppers Crossing.
7The victim of your offending is your biological daughter Stephanie.
8Your offending took place in the years between 24 June 2013 and 31 May 2017. Stephanie was aged between 11 and 15 at that time.
9
The first occasion of your abuse of her she can remember was in the
Sunshine West home.
10Stephanie was in primary school grade six at the time.[4]
[4]T 28.19.
11
You went into her room during the daytime. You touched her breasts
(Charge 1 – indecent act) and then used your fingers to penetrate her vagina, moving your fingers up and down (Charge – 2 incest). You were disturbed by someone coming down the corridor and left the bedroom.
12On another occasion at the Sunshine West property, you called Stephanie to join you in the garage which was separate from the house. She went to you and recalled lying flat on her stomach on a pouf stool in the garage; you were behind her and penetrated her vagina, moving your penis in and out. You had sex for approximately five minutes. Stephanie cried. She saw you ejaculate outside her body (Charge 3 – incest).
13Stephanie gave evidence of other events that occurred after the move to the Hoppers Crossing house.
14
Stephanie was asleep one night you went into her bedroom. She was wearing shorts and a t-shirt. You sat on her bed and rubbed her legs and buttocks on her skin. She awoke and yelled at you: 'just stop; just stop'. You told her to 'shut up' and became aggressive. You left the room and slammed the door shut
(Charge 4 – indecent act with a child under 16). Stephanie was in high school at the time of this incident.
15Stephanie said that at one time you made her 'swear on [her] Pop's life' that she would never tell anyone about anything that happened.
16Stephanie gave evidence of another occasion, when she was 14 or 15 years old. She had come home from school and was sitting on her bed. You called her into your bedroom, told her to close the door and lock it and she sat on your bed. You massaged her shoulders then moved your hands onto her breasts and squeezed them (Charge 5 – indecent act with a child under 16).
17You told her to undress; you undressed too. You lay on the bed and instructed Stephanie to 'get on top' of you. You put your penis in her vagina and you had sex with her in that position. It ended when you pushed her off you and ejaculated onto your stomach (Charge 6 – incest).
18Stephanie gave evidence of another occasion where she was alone in her room, getting ready to go to the shops. She asked you for money. You closed the door and bent her over the bed and penetrated her vagina with your penis from behind. Afterwards, you gave her $50 from your wallet and she went to the shops with her mother (Charge 7 – incest).
19
The final event Stephanie gave evidence of, occurred in the garage of the Hoppers Crossing property. It was night-time. Stephanie was in her bedroom. You called her to you in the garage. You told her to lock the doors. She recalls having
penis-vagina sex with you on the couch; you were leaning over her. You removed your penis and ejaculated. Stephanie went back into the house and showered
(Charge 8 – incest).
20These events happened in the context of ongoing sexual abuse. Stephanie said the sexual abuse occurred 'basically every day we lived together'[5] at the Sunshine West and Hoppers Crossing properties.[6] You will be sentenced only for the eight proven charges, but I accept Ms Nicholls's evidence that your abuse of her was enduring and persistent during the periods in which you resided in the family home. These events were not isolated events. They were not 'one off' but occurred in a broader context.
[5]T 66.20.
[6]T 66.20; see also Meagan Nicholls’ evidence about ‘on again off again’ nature of the relationship – T 136.19.
21Stephanie gave evidence that ultimately she told her sister Addie about what you had been doing to her. Addie told their mother, who took Stephanie to the police.
22At your trial you gave sworn evidence that the sexual abuse 'didn’t happen'. The jury rejected your evidence.
Nature and Gravity of the offending
23I must now articulate my conclusions as to the nature and gravity of this offending.
24First, I note the tender age Stephanie was at the time of your abuse of her. She was aged between 11 and 15 years old, a primary school student at the beginning of the charged period. You abused her throughout her adolescence, when she was a child commencing her journey towards adulthood, and all that that entails. It is a tender time in anyone's life.
25Your sexual abuse of Stephanie was deeply embedded in the day-to-day context of your being her father.
26One example of this is the account given of how the sexual abuse would sometimes occur after you had collected Stephanie and her siblings from their various schools in the afternoon.[7] This emphasises the enduring and transgressive nature of what you did. Your abuse of Stephanie was tightly woven into your role as carer of her. That said, I do not lose sight of the fact that this, that is, your paternal relationship to her is an element of the charge, rather than an aggravating feature of your conduct.
[7]See T 54.17.
27Your offending consisted of acts of deeply intimate violence[8] against your daughter. She was entitled, like any daughter is, to her father's loyalty, care, and protection. You, Mr Cross should have been standing between Stephanie and sexual violence, instead you brought it into her home, into her private spaces, and delivered it to her through the person she had no choice but to trust. Again, this is a defining feature of the charge of incest, and not an aggravating circumstance.
[8]DPP v Dalgliesh [2016] VSCA 148 at [46] (‘Dalgliesh 1’).
28I will sentence you for five acts of incest and three charges of committing an indecent act against your daughter, though I note the context is ongoing abuse while Stephanie was 11 to 15 years old during the periods you spent in the family home.
29I note that the 'indecent act' charges, with the exception of Charge 4, occurred within another sexual transaction and I take that into account in matters affecting cumulation. I add that in relation to the indecent act charges, unlike the incest charges, the fact that you were the father of your victim elevates their objective gravity.
30I note that the sentence on Charge 2, incest, consists of a digital penetration though the fact that this was the first penetration, and the fact that your daughter was in grade six at the time, leads me to assess its seriousness as equal to those later involving penile-vaginal penetration and therefore of higher risk. I note that authority tells me in any event a conclusion that digital penetration is less invasive than penile penetration is not one I should draw.[9]
[9]R v L [1998] 1 VR 551.
31I note that the circumstances of Charge 6 infuse your abuse with a transactional quality when you hand Stephanie money, a fact I find beyond reasonable doubt after having sex with her, a feature that is additionally degrading of her.
32The evidence at trial was that you ejaculated outside Stephanie's body. Even so, it exposed her, young and dependent as she was, to the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
33You sought Stephanie's silence, and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that you enjoined her to 'swear on her Pop's life' so that she would never disclose your offending to others. You, her dad, sought to exploit your daughter's sense of loyalty to, and affection for, her grandfather's memory to avoid your detection as a sexual offender.
34Acts of incest derange family life, upon which so much social goodness depends. Those who commit such acts must be regarded as fundamentally destructive of our community's values.
35I find, taking into account these matters, that the objective gravity of your offending falls into the high range, a proposition I understood to be conceded by your counsel.
Prior criminal history
36
Turning to your prior criminal history. Your criminal history commences in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court in 1999 and discloses approximately
eight appearances concerned in the main with driving, minor drug offending, minor weapons offences and breaches of court orders. I regard this prior history to be of very limited, if any, relevance in fixing this sentence.
Personal background
37Turning now to your personal background. You are now 41 years old; you grew up in regional New South Wales. Your biological father left your mother when you were an infant; you were raised by your stepfather, whom you believed, for some time, to be your biological father. Your mother had two boys from an earlier relationship and two younger children with your stepfather. You described your stepfather as a violent man who terrorised you throughout your childhood.
38You were sexually assaulted by your older brothers until the age of 10; you were raped up to three to four times a week. You were also violently assaulted by one of your brothers when you were 14; your brother was charged and remanded briefly for this attack, which was apparently over some minor domestic slight.
39You complained to your mother about your brothers' sexual abuse of you in your mid-teens, but her response was unsatisfactory.
40You moved in with your partner when you were 16 and had a son with that woman, but the relationship broke down. You moved back to your family home and left again at 18, after meeting your partner for the next 17 years: the mother of the complainant, Ms Meagan Nicholls.
41Stephanie, the victim of your offending, was born in 2001 when you were 19 years old. You went on to have three more children with Meagan. Your final separation from Meagan occurred in February 2017. You no longer see any of your five children.
42
Your primary schooling was not disrupted by any difficulty, but by Year 9 you were experiencing mental health problems and could not concentrate. You passed
Year 9 and then left the school.
43Since then, you have established a very stable history of full-time work. You worked in a recycling plant for five years from the age of 16. And until 2019 you were full-time employed in warehouse work including holding one job for a period of 9 years. You worked as a landscape gardener for 14 months while awaiting trial.
44You started drinking from about the age of 17; and you accept that you are dependent on alcohol. You have attempted periods of abstinence without enduring success. You used cannabis and later methamphetamine commencing in 2018 after these allegations arose.
Victim impact statements
45Turning now to consider the impact of your offending on your victims.
46
'If you are born into a burning house, you think the whole world is on fire', or so writes Stephanie in her statement about the impact of your offending. What you did resonates through Stephanie's life: poisoning her relationships, her senses
(certain smells or music will recall your abuse of her), her turning your abuse of her into harms against herself, either directly or through drug and alcohol use, and the limiting effect it had on her ability to complete a tertiary education. What you did to her was so damaging, in such complex and enduring ways, it is almost incomprehensible. I take into account the effect of your offending on her, which is naturally catastrophic, in arriving at your sentence.
47I note in passing my recollection of the quiet resolve with which your daughter gave her evidence before the jury and the 'year of healing' on which she is now determined to embark.
48I add here that I am conscious of the need not to be overwhelmed by the nature of the harm described in the victim impact statements, while taking the content of those statements into account in arriving at your sentence.
49I also listened to the statement made by your son, who, at only 16 had his own way to express the destruction your offending has wreaked on his family. I read the statement of Meaghan Nicholls and took its admissible portions into account. She writes of the tender affection she held for Stephanie as a baby, and the rage and disbelief she now experiences on account of having the safety of her family's home, something she had spent her life working for, devastated from the inside.
50I take the effect on your victims into account in arriving at your sentence.
Remorse and insight
51Turning now to the questions of remorse and insight. It was not put on your behalf that you are remorseful for what you did. You exercised your right to test the prosecution evidence, for which you will not be punished. The absence of remorse, of course, is not a circumstance of aggravation; I mention it only for completeness.
Matters in mitigation
52Two reports were tendered on your plea, and these became Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively.
53
The first was a psychological report dated 30 November 2022 prepared by
Ms Lisa Jackson (‘Jackson report’); the second, prepared as a result of things said in the first, was a neuropsychological report prepared by Dr Evans, a neuropsychologist, dated 17 January 2023 (‘Evans report’).
54Although both reports were ostensibly prepared to 'assist the court in understanding [your] mental functioning before, during and after the offending'[10] it is clear that neither expert was in a position to discuss the offending with you and did not do so. This treatment of the offending by the practitioners who did the assessments is consistent with your denials and your pleas of not guilty; it also limits the utility of the reports' opinions on some of the questions, such as your mental functioning during the offending, the level of future risk and your rehabilitative prospects.
[10]Jackson report [1]; Evans report [1].
55Ultimately no Verdins submissions were advanced on these materials. The content of the reports is relevant in giving context to your personal circumstances. You grew up in an unstable and violent family; you were subjected to sexual abuse by your two older brothers at a very young age. At 17 you started drinking, typically binge drinking, in order to manage your history of trauma. That substance abuse was on foot during the charged period.
56This statement was the closest either report came to linking your childhood difficulty with the offences for which you were found guilty:
The impact of a history of physical, emotional and sexual abuse from early childhood years increased his risk of developing chronic psychological problems and an associated substance abuse disorder and in the absence of any clinical assistance, he became reliant on the effects of alcohol and drugs to manage his symptoms of trauma. With no positive role models in his life and with a longstanding resentment directed at his mother's failure to protect him from the abuse, his relationships with females have remained problematic.[11]
[11]Jackson report [27].
57Ms Jackson found that you met the clinical criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from your mid-teens; this has affected, in her opinion, your capacity to function at a normal level. Testing revealed severe results for depression and anxiety.
58In the neuropsychological opinion, Dr Evans concludes that while aspects of your personality and mood may have contributed to your thinking processes during the time of the offending she did not consider those elements to be causal factors, though I note that this opinion has not been informed by any analysis by you or her of your thinking at the time of your offending.[12] Elsewhere, Dr Evans found your cognitive functioning and intellect were essentially within normal limits. She found you to have capacity for lucid thinking, adequate awareness and insight, and sufficient problem-solving and decision-making skills.[13]
[12]Evans report [34]
[13]Evans report [34].
59
As I said, ultimately, no Verdins submissions were advanced on this material.
I take into account more generally in mitigation of your sentence, that in your background you endured violent and abusive instability for much of your childhood, and as a consequence I will deal with you on sentence more leniently to some degree, than I would a person without such a background.
60I reviewed the authorities on the question of the role of sexual abuse in a sexual offender’s background on sentence. It is clear that if it is established that a child sexual assault offender was himself or herself sexually abused as a child and that history of sexual abuse has contributed to the offender's own criminality, this is a matter which must be taken into account as a sentencing factor in mitigation of penalty, as reducing the moral culpability for the acts.[14] To reduce the moral culpability of your offending though, there would need to be some expert evidence which connects your original abuse with your subsequent behaviour in relation to your daughter, and no such evidence is before me.
[14]See R v AWF (2000) 2 VR 1, 4 (‘AWF’).
61While I accept that you were the subject of such abuse as a young person, there is no evidence to link that abuse to a condition or state of mind which is a proper basis for viewing your criminality as less serious.[15] Your childhood abuse was linked to your later decline in mood and abuse of alcohol and drugs. But on the evidence before me, that is as far as it got, and your barrister did not argue otherwise.
[15]AWF [4] per Ormiston J; see also GEM v The Queen [2010] VSCA 168 [54].
Covid conditions in custody
62I take into account, and mitigate your sentence to a degree, on account of the lingering consequences of measures to meet the COVID-19 pandemic that you will endure while in custody.
Delay
63Turning now to the question of delay.
64The offending unfolded between 2013 and 2017. The matter was reported to the police on 9 July 2018, but it was not until 24 July 2019 when you were arrested, and a record of interview was conducted. You were charged on 14 August 2020 and your case moved through the Magistrates' Court; and in this court your case concluded with the jury's verdict on 12 September 2022. Time was allowed on your applications for the obtaining of mental health reports.
65On your plea, it was argued that the delay in the resolution of your case should be counted in your favour. I accept that the time between your arrest on 24 July 2019 and the jury's verdict meant that the case was hanging over your head for over three years and that this had a punitive effect, which I have taken into account in mitigation of your sentence.
66It is also true that between July 2019 and September 2022 there was no further offending on your part. I take this into account to some limited degree; there were also no meaningful positive steps taken towards rehabilitation.
Prospects for rehabilitation
67Turning now to my assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation. Dr Evans assessed your future prospects for rehabilitation in the context of dealing with your alcohol and substance use problems, without directly assessing (because she was unable to) the lengthy period within which you sexually abused your eldest daughter. Ms Jackson's report was similarly limited, Ms Jackson stating that your long-term treatment requirements will need to include your acknowledgement of the matters that are now before the court.
68Your barrister conceded, and I accept, that on the basis of the materials before me and the significant gaps in them, that is the result of your denial of the allegations your prospects for rehabilitation must be seen as guarded. Although it is unlikely you will ever again have access to dependent family members on whom to commit such crimes, I am unable to conclude comfortably that that particular form of sexual transgression is the only one you may be susceptible to.
69From the perspective I must now occupy, I must regard your rehabilitation as uncertain and, therefore the need for the protection of the community from you to be significant.
70I note that you have so far used your time in custody well completing a range of courses that have been made available to you. You've been acquiring new skills and are employed full time in prison. You have a strong history of full time employment. You are now commencing consultation with a psychiatric nurse in prison. I count these matters in your favour, though give them only some weight in the overall picture of your rehabilitation, which includes a denial of your offending.
Serious Offender Provisions and Totality
71Turning now to the serious offender provisions and the question of totality on this sentence. Given the commission dates of your offending, your sentence does not engage any 'mandatory' or 'standard' sentencing regime.
72You do however, fall to be sentenced as a 'serious sexual offender' pursuant to part 2A of the Sentencing Act. Each of Charges 1-8 are 'sexual offences' within the meaning of s 6B(1) of the Act. I consider that on each of the offences on the indictment a period of imprisonment is justified, and therefore you fall to be sentenced, as a serious offender on Charges 3-8; the presumption of cumulation is engaged on those sentences.
73Further, on Charges 3-8 I must have regard to the protection of the community as the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed. The prosecution did not contend for a disproportionate sentence, and I do not impose one. I conclude that the protection of the community is able to be achieved by the sentences that I am about to impose.
74I must resolve, the best I can, the tension between the application of the principle of totality and the legislative requirement for the presumption of cumulation on these sentences.[16] I will make orders for cumulation and concurrency while balancing this tension.
[16]Zhao v The Queen [2018] VSCA 267, [91] and following.
Current sentencing practice
75Turning now to current sentencing practices. I was to some limited degree assisted by the parties' identification of (broadly) comparable cases decided after the decision in the case of Dalgliesh v R.[17] I am guided by the Appeal Court's injunction against the inadequacy of sentences for this crime in the past. The following is a quote from Dalgliesh:
[…] We have concluded that sentencing courts must, by increments, increase the sentences for mid-range incest offences, so that the range of sentences is uplifted and substantially expanded. The maximum penalty provides sentencing courts with ample latitude to fix sentences which properly reflect the degree of criminality involved.[18]
[17] Geoffrey Boxer (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 300; DPP v Nenna (a pseudonym) [2019] VCC 1512; DPP v Hector Howard (a pseudonym) [2021] VSCA 298.
[18]Dalgliesh1 [131].
76This sentence is required to be, and will be, one more increment in that 'substantial expansion'.
77I also note that in my approach to locating even a broad range of sentences that have been properly imposed is limited on account of the part of sentencing history in which this case rests. In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Howard, the Court of Appeal said:
Whilst current sentencing practices are a factor to be considered in the sentencing calculus, in this case we have found them to be of little assistance. In short, examples, of 'post-Dalgliesh', sentences imposed for serious offending of this type after a trial are almost non-existent. There is insufficient data to establish sentencing practice in cases where sentence is imposed for such heinous conduct after conviction at trial.[19]
[19]DPP v Howard [2021] VSCA 298, 56.
78I am sentencing you, Mr Cross, in a landscape of sentences after pleas of not guilty which is almost non-existent.
Sentencing principles
79Turning now to the sentencing principles that have prominence in this case. There is a significant role for general deterrence: one likes to think most family members won't need to be told not to have sex with their children on pain of imprisonment, but for those who do, this sentence should be a clear indication that very substantial terms of imprisonment will be imposed once the offending is disclosed.
80On the state of the materials before me, I regard the need for specific deterrence, that is, to deter you from offending again, to be of some significance. I arrive at this conclusion on the basis of what you did and to whom, and having no certainty that such transgressive offending would necessarily be limited to your natural children. I have had regard to the protection of the community in passing this sentence and I unequivocally denounce, through the numbers I am about to read out and through these words, your offending.
81Justice requires in this case, appropriate and significant punishment to be imposed for what you did.
Sex Offenders Registration Act
82I will note that, having been found guilty of five Class 1 offences, and one Class 2 offence,[20] you will be registered under the Sex Offenders RegistrationAct [2004] and you will be required to report under that Act for the rest of your life. I will return in a moment to address you further on that. All right, if you could stand up now please Mr Cross, this is the part where I tell you the numbers.
[20]S 3M(3)(b) of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) requires treatment as a single class 1 offence where the class 2 offence occurred during the same transaction – see charges 1 and 2, and charges 5 and 6 in this case.
Disposition
83On Charge 1, indecent act with a child under 16 you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
84On Charge 2, incest, you are convicted and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.
85From this point you fall now to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender.
86On Charge 3, incest, you are convicted and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.
87On Charge 4, indecent act with a child under 16 you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
88On Charge 5, indecent act with a child under 16 you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
89On Charge 6, incest, you are convicted and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.
90On Charge 7, incest, you are convicted and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.
91On Charge 8, incest, you are convicted and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.
92
Charge 6 will be the base sentence. One month of the sentence on Charge 1,
five months of the sentence on Charge 4, three months of the sentence on
Charge 5, and one year on each of the sentences on Charges 2, 3, 7 and 8 will be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence on Charge 6, resulting in a total effective sentence of 13 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
93I fix a minimum period of 9 years before you become eligible for parole.
94On Charges 3-8 you fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender, and I note this in the records of the court. You can take a seat now Mr Cross.
Pre-sentence detention declaration
95I will further declare pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act that you have served 149 days by way of pre-sentence detention and I will cause that declaration to be noted in the records of the court.
'SORA' Explanation
96
Mr Cross I am about to have handed to you a copy of your obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. Could I ask for that to be delivered to
Mr Cross' counsel.
97Mr Barton could you please take this document to Mr Cross.
98MR BARTON: Yes, I will, Your Honour. May I approach?
99
HER HONOUR: Yes, of course. Mr Barton what I might get you to do is having handed the document to your client, I might just get you to come back to the
Bar table and I'll say something else about it.
100MR BARTON: Certainly, Your Honour.
101HER HONOUR: Mr Barton, can I get your undertaking that you'll take your client through that document and make sure he understands his obligations?
102MR BARTON: I already have in terms of the legislation.
103HER HONOUR: All right, thank you, take a seat. Mr Cross, I'm obliged to say the following matters to you, pursuant to the document that you've just been handed. You will be subject to the obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act2004 for the rest of your life. You are now being handed a copy, you have that copy in front of you, under that Act. It is important that you read through these obligations and get legal advice if you do not understand your obligations or the consequences of not complying with them.
104You need to understand that failing to comply with your obligations under this Order can give rise to criminal charges, which, if proven, can be punished by the imposition of a term of imprisonment.
105Counsel are there any other orders sought?
106COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
107HER HONOUR: I thank counsel for their assistance in this case and I'll adjourn until 2:15pm.
- - -
0
10
0