Director of Public Prosecutions v Cutajar
[2024] VCC 1419
•12 September 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-24-00577
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ANDREW CUTAJAR |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Rozen | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 June 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 12 September 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Cutajar | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 1419 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Guilty plea – Firearms and drug-related offending – Offender with intellectual disability – Verdins limb 1 enlivened - Reduced moral culpability – Extensive prior convictions – Justice plan – Community correction order in combination with term of imprisonment – CCO at time of offending-aggravating – Low to mid-range offending – General deterrence-reduced
Legislation Cited: Drugs, Poisons And Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic); Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Firearms Act 1996 (Vic); Disability Act 2006 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; Stevens v The Queen [2021] VSCA 218; Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; Clifton v The King [2024] VSCA 82
Sentence: 16 months’ imprisonment - 18 month Community Correction Order - s 6AAA declaration – 3 years 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months’.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr Daryl Brown | The Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr Phillip Dunn (KC) | Josh Smith Legal |
HIS HONOUR:
1Andrew Cutajar, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:
(1) One charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, contrary to s 71AC(1) of the Drugs, Poisons And Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) (maximum sentence – 15 years’ imprisonment) (‘Drugs Act’);
(2) One charge of being a prohibited person to possess an imitation firearm contrary to s 5AB(2) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic) (maximum sentence – 10 years’ imprisonment);
(3) One charge of being armed with criminal intent contrary to s 31B(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (maximum sentence – 5 years’ imprisonment);
(4) One charge of being a prohibited person to possess a firearm contrary to s 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) (maximum sentence – 10 years’ imprisonment);
(5) One charge of common assault contrary to Common Law (maximum sentence – 5 years’ imprisonment);
(6) One charge of possession of a drug of dependence contrary to s 73(1) of the Drugs Act (maximum sentence – 1 year).
2You are to be sentenced on the basis of the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 6 June 2024, which I note is an agreed document.[1]
[1] Exhibit P1.
The Offending
3You were 43 years old at the time of the offending. You were living between two addresses, one being with your sister in Bonnie Brook and another with your girlfriend in West Footscray.
4Your offending involved two co-offenders, Nicholas Stephenson who was 36 years old and Byron Moore who was 48 years old.
5The victim was Benjamin Trent who was 27 years old at the time, and was dating his partner Lauren Barclay. On the 3 November 2023, the victim and Ms Barclay were staying in Seymour for the night when their accommodation fell through and they arranged to stay at their acquaintance’s house, being Joseph Mazzeo’s unit. The victim and Mr Mazzeo were both users of methylamphetamine.
6On the 4 November 2023, the victim and Mr Mazzeo discussed ways to finance the purchase of methylamphetamine. Mr Mazzeo advised of where they could find a handgun they could steal in order to facilitate this purchase.
7This resulted in Mr Trent, Mr Mazzeo and Ms Barclay breaking into a unit on High Street, where they located a 9 mm handgun and a homemade 22 mm gun. At the time, they were unaware that the hand gun was an imitation firearm.
Charges 1 and 2 (drug trafficking and possession of firearm)
8Mr Mazzeo called a friend, Chantelle Pearse, to see if she knew anyone who would exchange the handgun for an ounce of methylamphetamine. Ms Pearse contacted Byron Moore to see if he was interested in purchasing the handgun in exchange for methylamphetamine.
9Mr Moore arranged for you and Mr Stephenson to attend at Ms Pearse’s house in Seymour to negotiate the deal. Ms Pearse notified Mr Mazzeo of the arrangement and to come to her house.
10Mr Mazzeo and the victim arrived at Ms Pearse’s house at around midnight on the 4 November 2023. You and Mr Stephenson arrived shortly after. You all agreed to exchange 1 ounce of methylamphetamine (valued at $5000) plus an additional $200 in cash for the handgun. You and Mr Stephenson weighed out two quantities of 14 grams of methylamphetamine, which were given to Mr Mazzeo and the victim.
11Either yourself or Mr Stephenson transferred $200 to Ms Pearse, who arranged for Mr Mazzeo to withdraw the money from her account. At the time that this exchange occurred, all parties believed that the handgun was real. You informed Mr Mazzeo that you needed the handgun because you had some issues with some serious people.
12Shortly after this exchange, you and Mr Stephenson left Seymour with the handgun when you realised that it was a Gel Blaster and not a real gun. You called Mr Moore to inform him that you had been ‘ripped off’. Mr Moore called Ms Pearse to tell her that the handgun was not real and that you were coming back for restitution.
13Ms Pearse contacted the victim and advised that the handgun was a gel blaster and that you and Mr Stephenson were coming back to Seymour. The victim was contact at 10:40pm by Mr Stephenson to advise that a black ute would be coming to collect him. The victim got into the vehicle being driven by Mr Moore as he had been receiving threatening messages from Mr Stephenson.
Charges 3, 4 and 5 (the ‘reprisal’ offending)
14Mr Moore drove the victim to the main gates of Rothwell Cemetery in Litte River where he parked. Mr Stephenson arrived at the location and handed a firearm to Mr Moore. The victim got out of the ute and tried to explain to Mr Stephenson that he was not aware that the handgun was not a real firearm. Mr Stephenson told Mr Trent to wait until you arrived, and also called him a ‘dog’ and accused him of knowing that the gun was fake.
15You arrived, handed a rifle to Mr Stephenson, and started throwing punches at the victim which he tried to deflect. At the same time, Mr Stephenson used the butt of the rifle to strike the victim to the head. The rifle discharged on impact but Mr Stephenson continued to strike the victim and you continued to punch him. Mr Stephenson pushed the bore of the recently discharged rifle into the victim’s chest causing a small burn.
16The victim convinced you and Mr Stephenson to stop assaulting him by agreeing to do an unspecified job to repay the two of you for the purchase price of the fake handgun. The victim got into Mr Moore’s car and was driven to Mr Moore’s house in Point Cook. When they arrived in the garage, a Polynesian male came out to assist Mr Moore with scrubbing down the victim with petrol to get rid of any gunshot residue.
17The victim was driven by Mr Moore to do the job to repay his debt, however after stopping at a service station, the victim was then driven back to Mr Moore’s house and told to remain within the garage, where he was left alone. Mr Moore and the Polynesian man kept checking on Mr Trent but appeared to become drug affected. When given the opportunity, Mr Trent escaped from the garage on a push bike.
Arrest and Interview
18On 6 December 2023, you were arrested by police at 42 Pitt Street, Footscray. Police executed a search warrant at the address and seized a small zip-lock bag containing methylamphetamine (Charge 6).
19You were interviewed and said that you were having trouble with some people who were blaming you for something you didn’t do, but they had come to your house with guns. Nick (‘Mr Stephenson’) told you that he could arrange to get you a gun but that the sellers of the gun wanted to be paid in methylamphetamine. You and Mr Stephenson purchased a bag of methylamphetamine from a supplier, which was then exchanged for the gun in Seymour.
20You told police that after you realised that the gun was a gel blaster, you wanted to drop the matter as you knew you wouldn’t get your money back but Mr Stephenson didn’t. Mr Stephenson called you the next day advising that he had the victim and to bring a bolt rifle with you. When you got there, you gave the rifle to Mr Stephenson who pointed the rifle at the victim and fired it to scare him. You denied to the police in your interview that you punched the victim.
Objective gravity
21The prosecution fairly conceded that you did not participate in the more serious offending alleged against your co-offenders Mr Stephenson and Mr Moore. Nonetheless, Mr Brown who appeared for the Director, stated that the offending in which you were involved was serious. You sold a not insignificant quantity of a drug of dependence for what you thought was a handgun. You brought a bolt action rifle with you to a remote location knowing it was to be used for a criminal purpose and you assaulted Mr Trent.
22It is relevant and aggravating that you were on a CCO at the time of this offending.
23On your behalf, Mr Dunn KC submitted that all of your offending involved others. He argued that owing to your lack of intellectual capacity, you are easily led and your involvement must be seen in this light.
24Starting with charges 1 and 2, the quantity of drugs you trafficked with others was relatively small. It is concerning that you were prepared to trade the drugs for a gun, although I note this was not planned by you. While the gun turned out to be an imitation, you were not aware of this. I consider this to be low to mid-level offending.
25In relation to charges 3-5 concerning the reprisal offending, you were not the instigator but you brought a gun and played an active role in assaulting Mr Trent. You did not use the gun and did not cause Mr Trent serious injuries. These are low to mid-range examples of this type of offending.
26As far as charge 6, the possession charge is concerned, I am satisfied that this was for your personal use.[2] This is low level offending.
[2] Drugs, Poisons And Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) s 73(2).
27I will consider your moral culpability for this offending later in these reasons after discussing your personal circumstances.
Personal Circumstances
28You were 43 years old at the time of the offending and are now 45 years old. You are one of three children born to Andrew and Rose Cutajar, with two older sisters but you only maintain contact with one. Your parents separated when you were young and you have not had any contact with them since. You are currently a father to four children, who you wish to reconnect with and be a positive role model for.[3]
[3] Reference from Eastside Recovery Service dated 15 June 2024 (‘Exhibit D4’) 2.
29At primary school you were diagnosed with having early learning difficulty in relation to your reading and comprehension. You had to repeat Year 7 twice, before leaving school and becoming unemployed.
30During your teenage years you began to regularly use drugs and committed numerous driving and criminal offences. You recall using cannabis from the age of 17, and describe beginning to use ‘Ice’ at the age of 26.[4]
[4] Confidential Neuropsychological Report by Dr Linda Borg dated 7 August 2012 (‘Exhibit D6’) 2.
31In 2018, you were placed on a drug treatment plan by Melbourne Magistrates’ Court which you completed.
32In June 2022, His Honour Judge Sexton placed you on an 18 month Community Correction Order (‘CCO’), which included Judicial Monitoring. During the course of that order, your mother passed away you did not complete the requirements of the Order.
33Impact Disability Support Service, which is an Approved NDIS Provider, has indicated that they will be able to provide assistance in finding suitable accommodation that is near your children, when you are released.[5]
[5] Letter from Impact Disability Support Service dated 15 June 2024 (‘Exhibit D1’) 1.
34Ms Nicole Santos is a close friend who has indicated that she is willing to house you. [6] She has known you for nearly 2 years and provides her ‘unwavering endorsement’ to provide you with a ‘nurturing setting’. She is prepared to alert authorities if you engage in criminal misconduct.
[6] Reference from Nicole Santos dated 12 June 2024 (‘Exhibit D2’).
35You have indicated to Impact Disability that you want to increase your literacy and numeracy skills. You also want to undertake a hairdressing course and find employment in this field.[7]
[7] Exhibit D1 (n 6) 2.
36Mr Cachia, your Disability Support Worker has indicated that you have been able to re-engage with a previous employer and have arranged employment with them should you be released.[8] Chrstina Cui, Director of U-Fit International has provided a letter to the court confirming this.[9] I will return to this later, in these reasons.
[8] Exhibit D4 (n 3).
[9] Reference from potential employer dated 15 June 2024 (‘Exhibit D5’).
Intellectual Disability
The Evidence
37The Disability Act 2006 (Vic) provides that "intellectual disability", in relation to a person over the age of 5 years, means the concurrent existence of:
(a) significant sub-average general intellectual functioning; and
(b) significant deficits in adaptive behaviour—
each of which became manifest before the age of 18 years.[10]
[10] Disability Act 2006 (Vic) s 3.
38The report of Dr Borg discussed below satisfy these criteria. No challenge was made to the submission by your counsel that you have an intellectual disability.
39Your counsel relied on a somewhat dated report dated 7 August 2012 prepared by Dr Linda Borg, Neuropsychologist.[11] Dr Borg interviewed you on 1 August 2012 and spoke to your mother Rose by phone. The report was prepared in relation to charges of burglary you were then facing. Dr Borg noted your extensive criminal record dating back to 1995, which as she observed, ran at that time to 12 pages. Dr Borg administered a number of tests including the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (4th ed) and the Weschler Memory Scale (4th ed).
[11] Confidential Neuropsychological Report by Dr Linda Borg dated 7 August 2012 (‘Exhibit D6’).
40Dr Borg states, based on the results and her interview with you, that you demonstrate a ‘pattern of globally reduced cognitive skills’ and have a Full Scale IQ of 69 placing you ‘within the range of an intellectual disability’. You have a comorbid diagnosis of ADHD which combines with your intellectual disability to negatively impact your memory and learning. You demonstrate ‘severe impairments in higher-level attention, which in turn affected [your] performance in other domains, such as working memory and learning’.[12]
[12] Ibid 4-5.
41Dr Borg observes that your performances on tests that she administered ‘indicate that [your] capacity to make reasoned and informed choices and to have the foresight to consider the consequences of [your] actions is impaired and these impairments are likely to be heightened when [you are] under the influence of drugs and [your] inhibitions are diminished even further’.[13]
[13] Ibid 6.
42Dr Borg considers that you appear to be ‘stuck in an established pattern of behaviour, whereby [you use] drugs and engage in criminal activity while using to sustain [your] habit’. When you are released from custody you return to the same social circle that you described as your only friends. You seem oblivious to these people not having your best interests in mind. Dr Borg describes you as ‘quite vulnerable’ and ‘easily influenced or swayed given your impaired insight and judgment.[14]
[14] Ibid.
43Dr Borg notes that in light of your entrenched life experience, maladaptive social circle and the learning limitations she diagnoses, successfully rehabilitating you ‘will be quite a difficult process’. She recommends linkage with Disability Services and a Justice Plan as the best chance to break your cycle of recidivism.[15]
[15] Ibid.
44As noted earlier, unfortunately the patterns identified by Dr Borg in 2012 appear to have continued. Since you were examined by Dr Borg you have been in and out of custody and have served further sentences in the community. Your criminal record now runs for 35 pages.
45However, and significantly, you have since 2012 been assessed as eligible to receive services and support under the National Disability Insurance scheme (NDIS). Paul Cachia is the support worker contracted by your nominated NDIS provider Impact Solutions. In that capacity Mr Cachia has provided the court with a reference dated 12 June 2024.[16]
[16] Exhibit D4 (n 3).
46Mr Cachia describes the ‘remarkable growth and determination in [your] efforts to better [your] life’. He explains that you were close to completing the 18 month CCO and had made great progress. In particular, Mr Cachia explains that he has met Ms Nicole Santos on a number of occasions and describes her ‘wonderful family’ and how she will support you with a place to live.
47Mr Cachia is committed to remain actively engaged in supporting you, including driving you to appointments and assisting you to find employment. He describes you as genuine and accepts that you have a sincere desire to improve your life. Finally, he commits to alerting the authorities if you re-offend.
48On the basis of this evidence I adjourned your hearing and requested the preparation of a Justice Plan by Forensic Disability Statewide Access Service under s 80 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘Sentencing Act’). The court received both a ‘Disability Overview Report’ dated 6 September 2024 and a Justice Plan of the same date.[17]
[17] Collectively Exhibit D7.
49The Report notes that you have been in contact with Disability Services since 2012. Your engagement has been ‘sporadic and minimal’ despite having had two Justice Plans, the most recent being from 2022.
50On a more positive note, you told Ms Muscat, Senior Disability Justice Coordinator, Forensic Disability Services, that you are willing to ‘re-engage with Disability Justice Coordination and the recommended services to address your support needs in the community’.[18] You also told Ms Muscat that Ms Santos is a positive influence on your life who has been in regular contact with you while in custody.
[18] Ibid 3.
51Ms Muscat spoke to your NDIS support worker Mr Cachia about your offer of part time employment with Podable Homes. Mr Cachia is prepared to travel with you to China for a training program in October 2024 to provide you with support. Ms Muscat also spoke with Ms Preeti Kataria, your Support Coordinator, who explained the plans for you under the NDIS.
52The recommendations in your Justice Plan are that you undergo assessment for AOD treatment and be monitored by the department.[19]
[19] Ibid.
The Law
53The relevance to the sentencing process of an offender having a diagnosed intellectual disability was explained by Priest and Kennedy JJA in the case of Stevens v The Queen[20] as follows:
As Muldrock makes clear, an intellectually disabled offender’s moral culpability will in most cases be lessened — although not necessarily eliminated — due to a reduced capacity to reason as to the wrongfulness of his or her conduct. The aspects of denunciation and just punishment in a sentence appropriate for a person of ordinary capacity will often — but, presumably, not always — be inappropriate for an intellectually disabled offender (and the needs of the community). So much is consistent with what had earlier been said in Verdins.
Moreover, in the case of an intellectually disabled offender, general and specific deterrence may — depending upon the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender — be moderated or eliminated as sentencing considerations.[21]
[20] [2021] VSCA 218, 17 [31] (‘Stevens’).
[21] Ibid, 17 [32] (citations omitted).
54In the case of Muldrock v The Queen,[22] the High Court had explained that, unlike cases in which an offender relies on a mental illness in mitigation of her or his moral culpability where it will generally be necessary to discern a causal relation between the illness and the offending:
… [s]uch a question is less likely to arise in sentencing a mentally retarded[23] offender because the lack of capacity to reason, as an ordinary person might, as to the wrongfulness of the conduct will, in most cases, substantially lessen the offender's moral culpability for the offence.[24]
[22] (2011) 244 CLR 120, 22 [54] (‘Muldrock’).
[23] The Court used the terms ‘mentally retarded’ and ‘intellectually disabled’ interchangeably.
[24] Muldrock (n 25) 22 [54].
55The Court went on to explain that:
… [t]he retributive effect and denunciatory aspect of a sentence that is appropriate to a person of ordinary capacity will often be inappropriate to the situation of a mentally retarded offender and to the needs of the community.[25]
[25] Ibid, [54].
56Where both Verdins and Muldrock are relevant, a sentencing court must assess both. Specific consideration must be given to an offender’s intellectual deficit ‘whether or not the evidence establishe[s] a distinct causal pathway to the offending, as is usually required for the application of Verdins principles’.[26]
[26] Clifton v The King [2024] VSCA 82, 15 [51].
Submissions
57The Prosecution has conceded that limb 1 of Verdins[27] has been enlivened due to your disability and as a result, your moral culpability is reduced.[28]
[27] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.
[28] Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic), ‘Prosecution Submissions on Sentence’, Submissions in DPP v CUTAJAR, Andrew, CR-24-00577, 17 June 2024, 1 [3].
58The Prosecution refers to your lengthy criminal history, breaches of CCOs and the seriousness of your current offending. The Prosecution submits that given these circumstances, the only appropriate sentence is a total effective term of imprisonment with a minimum term.[29]
[29] Ibid 2 [5]-[8].
59Your counsel submitted that having regard to your drug and intellectual problems, rehabilitation is an important part of your sentencing. Mr Dunn submitted that a combination sentence with a CCO is within range.[30]
[30] Phillip Dunn, ‘Defence Submissions on Plea’, Submissions in DPP v CUTAJAR, Andrew, CR-24-00577, 14 June 2024 (Mr Dunn KC) (during argument).
Consideration
60Based on the evidence of Dr Borg, I accept that the combination of your intellectual disability and your diagnosis of ADHD significantly reduces your moral culpability for your offending as explained in the authorities. It is clear that you were led into this offending by others who, as Dr Borg observes, clearly don’t have your best interests at heart.
61In addition, the aspects of denunciation and just punishment are of reduced importance in your case than would be the case if you were of normal intellectual functioning.
62Finally, as the Court of Appeal explained in Stevens, general deterrence should be given significantly reduced weight in a case such as yours, as you are an inappropriate medium for making an example to others.[31]
[31] Stevens (n 20) 17 [32].
63While your lengthy criminal record means that specific deterrence has a role to play, I consider that it will be more effective to promote your rehabilitation as a way of reducing the risk of further offending and thus protecting the community. I accept that, as Dr Borg explains, you have entrenched anti-social characteristics which, when combined with your poor choice of friends and drug habits have drawn you back to a life of crime again and again.
64The road ahead will not be easy for you but you are fortunate to have a range of supports available in relation to housing and employment. Your NDIS supports are also important, as will be the Justice Plan.
65On balance, and without disregarding the matters raised by Mr Brown, I have acceded to Mr Dunn’s submission and have imposed a combination sentence. I will give full credit for the time you have served in custody but will require you to serve a further period in custody before you are released. This will enable both you and those supporting you to prepare for your life in the community.
66Because the offences are founded on the same facts, I am able to impose an aggregate term of imprisonment and to make a single CCO in respect of all of the offences.[32] The CCO will be entirely rehabilitative as the punitive part of your sentence will be served by your incarceration.
[32] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 9, 40.
CCO
67I am unable to impose a CCO unless I explain the purpose and effect of the Order; the consequences if you breach the order without a reasonable excuse and the manner in which it can be varied.[33]
[33] Ibid s 95.
68The purpose is to promote your rehabilitation. The effect is to require you to comply with the conditions imposed by the court which I will shortly explain.
69If you breach any condition of the order you can be brought back to court and sentenced for up to 3 months in jail for breaching the order and you may be re-sentenced on the original offending.
70If you are having difficulty complying with the order you may apply to this court to vary a condition.
71You have been deemed suitable for a CCO by Corrections dated 12 July 2024.
72The order will contain the following standard conditions:
(i)you must not commit, whether in or outside Victoria, during the period of the order, an offence punishable by imprisonment;
(ii)you must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by the regulations;
(iii)you must report to, and receive visits from, the Secretary during the period of the order;
(iv)you must report to the community corrections centre at Sunshine CCS within 2 clear working days after the order comes into force which will be the day of your release from custody;
(v)you must notify the Secretary of any change of address or employment within 2 clear working days after the change;
(vi)you must not leave Victoria except with the permission, either generally or in relation to a particular case, of the Secretary; and
(vii)you must comply with any direction given by the Secretary that is necessary for the Secretary to give to ensure that you comply with the order.
73In addition, the special conditions I impose will be:
(i)You must participate in treatment and rehabilitation programs as directed for drugs and alcohol, mental health and programs to reduce offending.
(ii)You will be under supervision.
(iii)I will judicially monitor you with the first monitoring session which you must attend being on Wednesday, 30 July 2025 at 9.15am.
74You have been assessed as suitable for a CCO in a report dated 12 July 2024. Corrections recommend supervision due to your high risk of offending as well as treatment for substance use and referral to Forensic Intervention Services for assessment and suitability of programs for offending behaviour.
75Do you understand the terms of the CCO that I intend to impose? Do you agree to me making the CCO.
76The orders I make are:
(i)On charges 1-6, you are convicted and sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment to be followed on your release by a CCO for a further 18 months.
(ii)Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that the 281 days you have served while on re Sentencing Act mand be reckoned as time served in respect of the sentence I impose today. This is to be noted in the records of the court under s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act.
(iii)In addition to the mandatory conditions of all CCOs, the following special conditions apply to your CCO:
(a) You must participate in treatment and rehabilitation programs as directed for drugs and alcohol and programs to reduce offending and programs in relation to your mental health.
(b) You will be under supervision.
(c) You must comply with the terms of the Justice Plan.
(d) I will judicially monitor you with the first monitoring session which you must attend being on Wednesday, 30 July 2025 at 9.15am.
(iv)Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I indicate that if you had been found guilty of these offences by a jury I would have sentenced you to imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 2 months.
0
5
0