Director of Public Prosecutions v Crossley (a pseudonym)
[2018] VCC 1225
•9 August 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MASON CROSSLEY[1] |
[1] To ensure that there is no possibility of identification of any of the victims of sexual offending, these sentencing reasons have been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the accused.
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE GAMBLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Ballarat (Trial) Melbourne (Plea and Sentence) | |
DATE OF HEARING: | ||
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 9 August 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Crossley (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Not Guilty Plea – Convicted at trial of Sexual Penetration of a Child under 16 and Indecent Act with a Child under 16 (3 charges) – Offences committed against 3 daughters of the offender’s cousin in whose home he was staying – Breach of Trust – Significant and ongoing impact on victims – Relevant Criminal History – Offender was aged between 27 and 31 at time of offending and 44 at time of sentencing – Prospects of rehabilitation assessed as ‘guarded and fair at best’.
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991.
Cases Cited: DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90.
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months - Pre-sentence detention of 111 days declared – Offender sentenced as a serious sexual offender on all charges.
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Mr R Hammill (Trial and Plea) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms D Caruso | Kylie Maloney Legal |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1 Mason Crossley, you stood trial in respect of a five charge indictment. By jury verdict, you were found guilty of one charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 (Charge 1) and three charges of indecent act with a child under 16 (Charges 2-4), and acquitted in respect of a further charge of indecent act with a child under 16 (Charge 5).
2 The offences for which you were found guilty, relate to three young female complainants, who were sisters. I will refer to those complainants by initial so as to not identify any victim of your sexual offending. In descending order of age, they will be ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’.
3 All of the offending occurred in their family home. The relevant timeframe alleged was between 2 April 2001 and 24 May 2005, at which time you were aged between 27 and 31. You are now aged 44.
4 The maximum penalty for the offence of sexual penetration of a child under 16 alleged in Charge 1 is 25 years’ imprisonment.[2]
[2] This higher maximum applies because the complainant ‘A’ was under 10 years of age at the relevant time.
5 The maximum penalty for each of the offences of indecent act with a child under 16 alleged in Charges 2-4 is 10 years’ imprisonment.
6 The circumstances in which you came to commit these offences were fully ventilated at the trial. For present purposes, the following brief outline will suffice.
Circumstances of the offending
7 You were the cousin of the victims’ mother and, on each of the occasions of sexual offending, were staying over at their family home. Your offending represents a gross breach of the trust that was placed in you by each of the young victims and their mother.
8 The victim of the offence in Charge 1, was the oldest of the sisters, complainant ‘A’. She was born in early 1993. When she was between 8 and 8 ½ years of age, she entered the study located in the rear section of her family home. Mr Crossley was already in that room, seated on a chair in front of a computer. He told her to sit on his lap. After she did so, and while she was playing on the computer, he began rubbing her clitoris over her underwear. He then moved his hand down and continued to rub her vagina over her underwear. He then moved his finger under her underwear and inserted it into her vagina. He moved his finger inside her vagina a couple of times while holding her around her waist. He desisted when A’s mother, who had been cooking dinner in the kitchen, yelled out that dinner was ready. Before she left the study, A was threatened by Mr Crossley who told her that if she said anything about what had happened, he would ‘hurt her’.
9 The victim of the offences in Charges 2 and 3, was the middle sister, complainant ‘B’. She was born in late 1994.
10 The offence in Charge 2 relates to a specific occasion when she was between 6 and 8 years of age. She was in the back room of her home, the one where the computer was located. Mr Crossley was on MSN messenger at the time. She asked him if she could sit on his knee and he agreed. Once seated, he put his hand on her vagina over her clothing. He kept his hand firmly on her vagina but did not move it. He desisted only when B’s mother returned home and told her daughter B and Mr Crossley that she had just won a TV at Bingo. B got off Mr Crossley’s knee shortly after her mother left the room.
11 The offence in Charge 3 relates to a later specific occasion. It occurred in the dining room once the computer had been moved there from the back room and at a time after her mother had given birth to twins in the early part of 2003. It would seem therefore that B had only recently turned 9 when this incident occurred. She recalls sitting on the accused man’s knee while he was seated at the computer. He used his hand to touch her firmly on her vagina over her clothing.
12 The victim of the offence in Charge 4, was the youngest of the sisters, complainant ‘C’. She was born in mid-1999. This offence relates to a specific occasion when Mr Crossley came into the bedroom that she shared with her sisters, A and B. C was aged 5 at the relevant time. It was at night. She had no memory of her sisters being in the room with her on that occasion. She woke up as Mr Crossley came into the room. He sat on her bed and then began playing with her hair and softly rubbing her leg. He then rubbed her vagina over her underwear. When he commenced to put his hand inside her underwear, she rolled over and pretended to be asleep in an attempt to prevent him going further. He then desisted and left her room.
Context Evidence
13 It should also be noted that in respect of complainants A and B, evidence of other alleged acts of sexual abuse were led at the trial for context purposes. The defence did not seek to argue against its admission. The relevant evidence can be briefly described as follows.
14 A said that there were ‘three or four’ other occasions when similar things happened, but not involving penetration. Those occasions occurred in the weeks leading up to the charged incident (Charge 1). On those other occasions, he played with her clitoris but did not insert his finger into her vagina. He also ‘rubbed her body’.
15 B said that there were ‘over ten’ other occasions apart from the two the subject of Charges 2 and 3. On those other occasions, he did the same type of thing, namely, place his hand over her vagina over her clothing. Some of those occasions occurred before the incident the subject of Charge 3 and others afterwards.
16 I am satisfied to the requisite standard that the ‘other occasions’ of sexual misconduct alleged by each of A and B took place as they allege.
17 Such evidence is relevant in a number of ways.
18 The other misconduct evidence relating to A provides a full and proper context in which to assess the charged conduct the subject of Charge 1. Equally, the other misconduct evidence relating to B provides a full and proper context in which to assess the charged conduct the subject of Charges 2 and 3. Such evidence prevents it being said on Mr Crossley’s behalf, that the charged offending in relation to A or B was isolated or spontaneous. Furthermore, the ‘other occasions’ evidence is relevant to this Court’s assessment of Mr Crossley’s prospects of rehabilitation.
Victim impact
19 Each of the complainants have recently made a victim impact statement.[3] They paint a vivid picture of the harm that Mr Crossley’s offending has caused. I also note that C read her statement aloud to the Court during the plea hearing. It was clear to me then, that she is still coming to terms with what Mr Crossley did to her all those years ago.
[3] A’s VIS was made on 1 June 2018 and tendered as exhibit D; B’s VIS was made on 5 June 2018 and tendered as exhibit E, and C’s VIS was made on 26 June 2018 and tendered as exhibit F.
20 In her statement, A indicates that the offending changed her life. Ever since she was abused, she has felt different to other girls. She changed from being a carefree girl to one who felt dirty and disgusting. She avoided using the computer and stayed away from home as much as she could. Her ongoing feelings of anger, depression and anxiety continue to negatively impact on her intimate relationships. She even feels scared for her own daughter and worries about not being able to protect her.
21 For her part, B continues to question why Mr Crossley sexually abused her. Since the offending, she has felt unsafe, afraid, angry and anxious. She worries that she will never get over what happened to her.
22 As for C, she cannot say the name of her abuser and feels sick, irrational and aggressive whenever she hears it. She cannot even make friends with anyone who has the same first name as Mr Crossley. It affected her schooling and made her feel unsafe. Even though her father arranged counselling, she was unable to talk about what occurred. It plays on her mind daily; she continues to feel isolated and anxious, has low self-esteem and feels aggressive towards all men. Whilst she is making every effort to move on with her life, she still considers herself ‘a work in progress’.
23 The offending against C has also affected B who, in her own victim impact statement says that when she learnt of what Mr Crossley had done to C, she felt angry that she had not been able to protect her younger sister.
24 The effect that this offending has had on those victims comes as no surprise to this Court. Offending such as this is abhorrent. It represents a serious breach of trust and an abuse of the power that an adult exercises over a child. It skews the child’s understanding of the world and robs them of their innocence.
Gravity of the offending
25 This Court must have regard to the objective gravity of this offending.
26 Such offending is intrinsically very serious. The respective maximum penalties fixed by Parliament, particularly in relation to Charge 1, amply demonstrate that fact.
27 The inherent gravity of sexual offending against children is better understood now than was the case in years past. The Courts must be seen to respond to the knowledge gained and to the concerns of the community. In that context, the often quoted observations made by Vincent JA in DPP v Toomey[4] are worth repeating:
“It is well to bear in mind that the rehabilitation of the victim of sexual abuse may often be more difficult to achieve than that of the perpetrator. Frequently the damage will be profound and a long time will pass before it can be addressed at all. In the meantime, childhood will be destroyed, self-esteem damaged, educational and career opportunities lost and the capacity to form and maintain relationships seriously impaired. The notion to which I have adverted underpins, I believe, such concepts as restorative justice, just punishment, the vindication of rights and the attribution of responsibility based on moral culpability. The vindication of the victim in cases of this kind, in particular, is profoundly important if the criminal justice system is to perform its role properly.
…[O]ften the commission of such offences will not be revealed for years and that their eventual disclosure will be both extremely difficult and painful for those offended against, their families and others associated with them.”[5]
[4] [2006] VSCA 90.
[5] Ibid, [22]-[23].
28 Although those observations were made in the context of a case that involved offending by a teacher against a student, they have a much broader relevance. In my view, some of those observations have obvious significance in this case.
29 Returning to the case at hand, I note that there are a number of common features to all of the offences. For example, each offence occurred in the victim’s home and involved a breach of trust as an adult, relative and guest. Each offence lasted for some time and was certainly not fleeting in nature; it was only through the arrival or close proximity of the victim’s mother or the reaction of the victim herself which put an end to the incident. In each case, the offending has had a significant and lasting deleterious impact on the victim. Their quality of life has suffered and will continue to be negatively impacted into the foreseeable future.
30 In respect of Charges 2, 3 and 4, the victims B and C were very young, particularly C who only 5 at the relevant time.
31 In respect of Charge 1, the victim was threatened with harm if she told anybody about what had just occurred. That threat had an obvious and entirely predictable impact on such a vulnerable young girl. She had to keep the traumatic memories of that abuse to herself for years afterwards.
32 Whilst acknowledging that this offending was serious in nature, defence counsel submitted that they were not instances that fell at the highest end of the spectrum of seriousness for offences of this type. For example, the indecent acts involved touching over clothing rather than direct contact with the victim’s vagina. And, in relation to Charge 1, the form of penetration should be borne in mind.
33 In all the circumstances, I consider each of these offences to be relatively serious examples of their type and that Mr Crossley’s level of moral culpability should be assessed as being of a high order.
34 Viewed globally, he engaged in serious sexual offending towards three young and vulnerable girls who, along with their mother, were entitled to look to him for love and protection. He repaid that trust by abusing those girls for his own perverse sexual pleasure.
35 Each of those victims should be represented in the overall level of punishment imposed on Mr Crossley and as such, an appropriate level of cumulation as between the various charges is required.
Criminal Record
36 I note that Mr Crossley has a relevant criminal record.
37 I have put to one side, the very aged offending for which he appeared in the Children’s Court jurisdiction many years ago.
38 In relation to the other offences for which he was sentenced prior to committing the current offences, I note the following. As a result of six Court appearances, he was sentenced in respect of 24 offences. Most involved dishonesty related offending, in various forms, but there were also offences of criminal damage, possess prescribed weapon and resist police. The most significant appearance was on 27 March 1998, when he was convicted and placed on a one month intensive correction order in respect of assault police, resist police, assault by kicking and use threatening words in a public place.
39 The offences for which Mr Crossley has been sentenced after committing the current offences, are relevant to the weight to be given to specific deterrence and to my assessment of his prospects of rehabilitation. I note that as a result of a further five Court appearances, he was sentenced in respect of an additional 44 offences.[6]
[6] It is also noted that Mr Crossley was also sentenced for an offence of criminal damage on 28 April 2003, which was during the period alleged in respect of the offending against A, B and C.
40 The appearance at the Ballarat County Court on 4 May 2007 is by far the most significant. On that occasion, he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 5 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 4 years in respect of 12 sex offences committed against the nine-year old daughter of his then girlfriend. There were two charges of sexual penetration of a child under 10 and ten charges of committing an indecent act with a child under 16. At the time of committing those offences, he was 32.
41 His relationship with that victim’s mother commenced in July 2006 and ended on 26 October of the same year. The offending occurred between 26 September and 26 October, at which time he was living in the victim’s family home. It was in respect of that same victim that I allowed some evidence to be led in the current matter for a tendency purpose. She was referred to by the initial pseudonym, “D”.
42 I also note that in respect of some of those offences, Mr Crossley was sentenced as a serious sex offender by Judge Gullaci on 4 May 2007. By further Court order, he was also made subject to the reporting obligations of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, for life.
43 That offending is adequately summarised by Judge Gullaci in his revised sentencing reasons, a copy of which were tendered as exhibit C on the plea hearing for the current matter. I will not repeat those details now but simply note that it was clearly offending of a very serious nature and, like this case, involved the targeting of a young female victim in whose home he was then living.
44 Of the other appearances, I note that he has been sentenced for the offences of, inter alia, recklessly causing injury (2007), illegal possession of a weapon (2016) and ammunition (2016 and 2017), and four of failing to comply with reporting obligations (2018). Defence counsel explained the latter offences by pointing out that they all occurred whilst her client was transient and having difficulty obtaining stable accommodation.
45 I note that there are two significant gaps in the criminal record. The first is the 9 year period between 27 March 1998 and 4 May 2007, during which the only Court appearance was that in the Magistrates’ Court on 28 April 2003 for a charge of criminal damage. The second is the further 9 year period between 18 June 2007 and 17 June 2016. On the first of those dates, he was sentenced to a term of 3 months’ imprisonment and on the latter date to a 12 month community correction order. There were, however, no other Court appearances in the intervening period.
46 I note that in relation to his appearances as an adult, Mr Crossley has been given various dispositions, including fines, a community based order, a community correction order (which he breached), a wholly suspended sentence, and various terms of immediate imprisonment, the lengthiest of which by far was that imposed by Judge Gullaci on 4 May 2007.
47 I note for completeness sake, that Mr Crossley also has a limited South Australian Criminal Record, restricted to matters of dishonesty.
Personal circumstances
48 I will now briefly outline your personal circumstances, Mr Crossley.
49 You were born in Ballarat in 1973. You have an older brother and two younger sisters.
50 You had a dysfunctional and disadvantaged childhood. Your father abused alcohol and was violent. Your parents separated when you were about 6. Your mother then re-partnered with a man who also drank and behaved violently. Whilst your mother did her best to protect you, a number of other members of your immediate and extended family abused you. The last such occasion was when you were 13 and carried out by an uncle. At around that same time, your father died.
51 You struggled with the academic demands of school and were ultimately expelled part-way through Year 9. You were sent to a Boys Home when you were about 16 or 17 in the context of running away from home and stealing to support your use of alcohol and cannabis.
52 Your work history is fairly limited, but includes labouring-type work and, more significantly, an 8-year period spent installing satellites for pay TV.
53 You have had a number of age appropriate heterosexual relationships, albeit that all of them have been fairly short term in nature. Your most current relationship broke up in the context of the current allegations.
54 You have five children ranging in age from 12 up to 26. You have some contact with two daughters and hope to regain contact in the future with your two youngest children.
55 At the request of your legal representatives, the consultant forensic psychiatrist, Dr Kate Roberts, assessed you via video-link on 18 May 2018. As Dr Roberts makes clear in her report of 13 June,[7] she was asked to provide an opinion on any relevant mental health issues. I have had regard to the contents of that report when determining the appropriate sentence in this case.
[7] The report was tendered as exhibit 2 on the plea.
56 After first noting the mental health history that you gave her, Dr Roberts stated that she did not find any current evidence of major mental illness. She noted that you were currently on treatment for depression but did not consider you to be currently depressed. In her view, the condition appears to have been temporary in nature in that it has responded to treatment.
57 She thinks it likely that, given the sexual and physical abuse that you experienced as a child, you attempted to cope with that abuse over the years by means of self-medicating with alcohol and drugs. As such, she considers that you satisfy the criteria for alcohol and cannabis dependence, currently in remission.
58 In the event that treatment is withdrawn or you face sustained stressors, Dr Roberts considers there is a risk of your depression recurring. Accordingly, she recommends continued treatment for depression.
59 Dr Roberts outlined your history of illicit substance abuse; you started using drugs from a very early age and became a polysubstance user. It remains a problem and so, she believes that you would benefit from some specific drug and alcohol treatment. In her view, you are at high risk of returning to substance use on release from prison. On a positive note, you have told her that you would be willing to attend a drug and alcohol program.
60 In relation to your current offending, Dr Roberts noted your continuing denials and her inability to say that any condition contributed to your offending behaviour. Those denials preclude her from making any assessment of your risk of re-offending. She was, however, able to say that if you returned to intoxicant use, your risk of re-offending may be heightened.
61 As for your past sexual offending, Dr Roberts indicated that you described it as ‘opportunistic’ and made no express statement of remorse.[8] The account that you gave her of that past offending is incomplete and misleading, to say the least.[9] Your denials of having a sexual interest in or fantasies about children must be viewed in that context.[10]
[8] Exhibit 2, page 5.7.
[9]Ibid, page 3.5.
[10] Ibid, page 3.6.
62 It would appear that Dr Roberts accepted what you said in that regard at face value, as she went on to state as follows:
I did not find evidence to suggest he fulfilled criteria of paedophilia. He denied any attraction to children, nor did he have recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviours involving sexual activity with pre-pubescent children.[11]
[11]Ibid, page 5.8.
63 As I indicated on the plea, I have some difficulty accepting that opinion in light of the assumptions on which it is based. I do not consider Mr Crossley’s past sexual offending to have been limited or opportunistic and nor do I accept at face value, his denials of having any sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. But that said, I do not automatically jump to the opposite conclusion insofar as a diagnosis of paedophilia is concerned. In the end, and making full allowance for the significant period that has elapsed since the last of his sexual offending occurred, I have concluded that he is someone who has some sexual interest in pre-pubescent children and is at some risk of re-offending in the future, particularly if he does not meaningfully engage in a sex offender’s course and a drug and alcohol program and/or relapses into intoxicant abuse.
Matters in mitigation
64 There is very little to be said by way of mitigation of the current offending itself. It is offending for which there is to be no discount for a plea of guilty or on account of any remorse. Mr Crossley went to trial, continues to maintain his innocence, and has no remorse for what he did to the victims. At most, what can be said is that it does not fall into the upper end of the range for offending of this type. But, it remains serious and, in my view, falls at least in the mid-range.
65 As for Mr Crossley’s personal circumstances, I note that he has had a very difficult upbringing which set in train his problems with schooling and substance abuse and explains much of his offending, particularly that relating to dishonesty. I note that no specific submission was made suggesting that his own abuse as a child was causally related to the current offending. Given Mr Crossley’s protestations of innocence, that is hardly surprising.
66 Mr Crossley has demonstrated in the past that he is capable of leading a stable and productive life. I consider him capable of doing so again, providing he can undertake the appropriate treatment for his drug problem and sexual offending, and providing he can get a job and stay off drugs when he is eventually released from custody.
67 He appears to have some continuing family support.
68 And, he has at least expressed an interest in undertaking an appropriate drug and alcohol program.
69 I also note that he has spent his time on remand to date on protection and I consider it likely, given the nature of these offences, that he is likely to remain in protection for the duration of the sentence that this Court will impose on him today.
70 I further note that he has struggled in recent weeks, as a result of which he has been hospitalised and re-commenced on the medication quietiapine.
71 I accept that Mr Crossley will find his time in custody difficult.
Relevant Sentencing Principles
72 There are a number of sentencing principles that must be appropriately recognised and weighted in this sentencing exercise.
73 General deterrence and denunciation are very important considerations in the mix.
74 Specific deterrence is an important consideration in the particular circumstances of this case. I consider that to be the case notwithstanding that there has been no sexual offending by Mr Crossley since October of 2006. The current offending was very serious and troubling. It is offending for which there has been no acceptance of personal responsibility or treatment. Furthermore, Mr Crossley has been previously convicted of committing multiple serious sexual offences against a different female child of a similar age. Clearly, any sentence imposed by this Court for the current offences must go some way towards discouraging him from ever contemplating a repetition of this or any similar type of offending.
75 For similar reasons, there is a need to provide the community with some protection from Mr Crossley. Indeed, by reason of him being sentenced as a serious sexual offender for these offences, this Court must regard such protection as the principal purpose of sentencing. That said, the totality principle remains relevant, albeit somewhat tempered.
76 In the context of protection of the community, two matters are worth noting at this stage. First, Mr Crossley has already undertaken a sex offenders course since he committed the current offences. As I understand it, that occurred as a result of the sentence imposed by Judge Gullaci. Second, it could not be said that Mr Crossley has reached an age where a repetition of this type of offending is impossible or unlikely. He is 44 years old and may well have many years of active adult life ahead of him.
77 There is a need to moderate the sentence for these matters to some degree in light of the lost opportunity for any concurrency between the substantial 2007 sentence and this sentence. As noted by Ms Caruso on the plea, if the current offences had been able to be prosecuted in a timelier manner, they could have been heard at or near the same time as the case before Judge Gullaci. In that event, it is likely that there would have been some element of concurrency between the two sets of offending. I accept that argument and have taken that matter into account when determining the appropriate sentence in this case.
78 As has been acknowledged by both parties, Mr Crossley falls to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender for all of the offences for which the jury found him guilty. That means that protection of the community must be the principal purpose of sentencing. There is also a presumption of cumulation. Whilst this Court also has a discretion to impose a disproportionate sentence, I do not intend to do so here in light of the number of charges, the applicable maximum penalties and the fact that the prosecution did not urge the Court to consider taking that unusual and extreme course.
79 This Court is required to impose a just punishment. Mr Crossley must be punished for his offending to an extent and in a manner that is just in all the circumstances.
80 It must also have regard to Mr Crossley’s age and prospects for rehabilitation. In all the circumstances, and doing the best I can with the available material, I consider those prospects to be guarded and fair at best.
Sentencing submissions
81 Ms Caruso, counsel appearing on behalf of Mr Crossley, realistically and sensibly conceded that this offending warranted the imposition of an immediate term of imprisonment in the form of a head sentence and non-parole period. She also acknowledged that her client fell to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender in respect of each of the four charges.
82 For their part, the prosecution made a similar submission and whilst doing so, referred to the nature and seriousness of these offences, the relevant convictions for offending of a similar and more serious nature in 2007, and the applicability of a number of sentencing principles to this case, including the serious sexual offender provisions.
Analysis
83 In my view, nothing other than a substantial sentence is open in this case if the Court is to fulfil its duty. Such a sentence is required in order to justly punish Mr Crossley for the serious criminal conduct in which he engaged, and in order to give appropriate weight to a number of important sentencing principles, including deterrence and denunciation. This offending must be roundly condemned on behalf of the community and Mr Crossley and other like-minded people must be strongly discouraged from acting in this or any similar fashion in the future.
Sentence
84 Mr Crossley, would you please stand.
85 You are convicted on each charge and sentenced to the following terms of imprisonment:
86 Charge 1, sexual penetration of a child under 16, five and a half years.
87 Charge 2, indecent act with a child under 16, two years.
88 Charge 3, indecent act with a child under 16, two years.
89 Charge 4, indecent act with a child under 16, two years.
90 The sentence of five and a half years imposed for Charge 1 will be the base sentence.
91 As required by the serious sexual offender provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991, I will explain how I arrive at the total effective sentence by means of orders as to concurrency.
92 The following periods are to be served concurrently on that base sentence and on each other: Eighteen months of the sentence imposed for Charge 2, eighteen months of the sentence imposed for Charge 3, and fifteen months of the sentence imposed for Charge 4.
93 The total effective sentence is therefore seven years and three months’ imprisonment.
94 In respect of that head sentence, I fix a non-parole period of five years and three months.
95 Had I adopted the usual course when sentencing and made orders as to cumulation, I would have ordered that six months in respect of each of the sentences imposed for Charges 2 and 3 and nine months of the sentence imposed for charge 4, were to be served cumulatively on the base sentence and on each other. Of course, such an approach would have arrived at the same total effective sentence
96 I make clear again that Mr Crossley has been sentenced as a serious sexual offender in respect to Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 and I order that such declaration be noted in the records of the Court as required by section 6F of the Sentencing Act 1991.
Pre-Sentence Detention
97 I note that after he was interviewed by police, Mr Crossley was bailed. He remained on bail until 20 April 2018, the date that the jury announced their verdicts. After the jury was finally discharged, he was remanded in custody where he has remained ever since.
98 The agreed period of pre-sentence detention was 75 days as at the date of the plea hearing. It is now 111 days, not including today’s date.
99 Accordingly, I declare that Mr Crossley has already served a period of 111 days pre-sentence detention, not including today’s date, in respect of this sentence, and I order that such declaration and its details be entered in the records of this court.
Other Matters
100 Counsel, are there any matters that either of you wish to raise in respect of the sentence or reasons for sentence?
101 MR WEIGEL: No, your Honour.
102 MS CARUSO: No, your Honour.
103 HIS HONOUR: Very well. I will now stand down until the appeal matters are ready to commence.
- - -
0