Director of Public Prosecutions v Dau
[2019] VCC 1306
•19 August 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR-19-00787
Indictment No. K10216812
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| AWOUN DAU |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 16 August 2019 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 19 August 2019 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Dau |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1306 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: Armed robbery, 25 years old, on CCO and bail at time of offence. Relevant recent history.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr Harrison (for the plea) Mr M. Sargent (for the sentence) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr Sturges (for the plea) Mr M. White (for the sentence) | Matthew White & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1Awoun Dau, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of armed robbery. That offence is punishable by a 25 year maximum term of imprisonment.
2You were born on 10 October 1993. You are 25 years of age. You have admitted a worrying enough criminal history. That is conceded.
3The matter was opened to me last Friday by Mr Harrison, who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. An amended written opening dated 14 August 2019 was tendered on the plea and was marked as Exhibit A.
4Some still photographs were also tendered as part of that same exhibit. As your counsel made clear that the written opening, Exhibit A, was an agreed summary, it is unnecessary for me to descend to the full factual detail of the offence. I will not stray beyond the agreed facts in this case. This was a soft target armed robbery, no question about that, nor is there any question that it was a nasty frightening offence. It was. There had been an ‘incident’ a handful of days before this offence involving the same victim. The victim had reported that ‘incident’ to the police and that has led to the laying of that earlier charge of robbery on the same victim, though the charge had not been laid as at the commission date of the matter I am dealing with. Now that charge is in fact listed for mention today, I believe, and is going to be adjourned off. There is no issue taken with the fact of a theft from the same outlet when the same victim was present a couple of days before, but there may well be issue taken with the suggestion of there being force or threat of force and so the robbery may yet be contested. That is why I am describing it in this neutral term as 'an earlier incident'. You attended again on this day being 24 January of this year. You carried and then produced a knife, telling your victim you had come to fix him up. You told him that twice. It was obviously enough some reference to the earlier event that I have described. You have opened the knife and you pointed it at your victim. You had been swearing at him and also abused a friend of the victim who happened to be present. You took a low value watch from the counter and then left. You were arrested a short time later sitting in the nearby vicinity drinking a can of alcohol. You were very drunk indeed, there is no doubt about that.
5It was not a sophisticated offence, I accept that. But it is no comfort to your victim that you were very drunk at the time or committing what might be described by your counsel in the safety and comfort of a court as a low level offence. No comfort at all.
6We, as Judges, have become so used to soft target armed robberies in these courts and that is because, regrettably, we see so many of them. What we must not lose sight of is how serious they actually are. You entered the shop where your victim worked, you then produced the knife. It was undoubtedly frightening offending.
7This style of armed robbery has an impact upon those who have the misfortune to be caught up in them. Your victim was robbed at knifepoint in his workplace. That is a place where he should have been safe and he was not and it was purely because of your attendance on the day. Armed robbery is, by its very nature, a serious criminal offence. The 25 year maximum term available says as much.
8You were too drunk to be interviewed. You pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and you have been continuously in custody from the day of your arrest. It stood at 204 days as of the plea date. It is more now, of course, 207 days to be precise.
Victim Impact
9Though there is no victim impact statement, obviously, as I have said, this was a frightening incident and your counsel concedes as much. I was taken also to the victim's written statement attached to the depositions, that is the portion dealing with the way he felt. Of course, he was scared, how could it not be frightening? I take into account the impact here. I cannot factor in any long-term impact, there is just nothing before me speaking of that but, as I say, this was undoubtedly a frightening event and one that will never be forgotten by your victim.
Plea in mitigation
10Your counsel, Mr Sturges, conducted an excellent plea on your behalf. He prepared some equally excellent and detailed written submissions which were marked as Exhibit 1. They contained an addendum (Exhibit 2) dealing with the discrete issue of the deportation. He tendered a report from Ms Lechner which was marked as Exhibit 3. He took me to your personal background in quite some detail in his written submissions. Mr Sturges chiefly relied upon:
·Your early guilty plea;
·The presence of remorse and victim empathy, as well as some level of insight into the changes needed in your life;
·He took me to the particular circumstances of the offence and the absence of some aggravating features which sometimes exist;
·He also raised the risk of deportation in a mitigatory sense;
·He argued that you had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation and that you were still quite youthful;
·He conceded though that your recent history before the courts was far from encouraging and that specific deterrence and just punishment would loom large in the sentencing exercise.
11Mr Sturges argued for a combination type sentence, namely a term of imprisonment with release in the future onto a community corrections order. He conceded the inevitability of a further period in custody, over and above your current pre-sentence detention, but he submitted that there was, after all, a 12 months period available.
Prosecution
12Mr Harrison who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions of this state argued against the availability of such a disposition. The Director, through Mr Harrison, submitted that the only available disposition was a term of imprisonment and one requiring the fixing of a non-parole period. He made submissions as to the matters in aggravation and argued that the court could only really be quite cautious as to your future prospects and that was so owing to the discouraging recent criminal history. The Director did not concede that the offence was at the lowest level but nor was your own counsel even suggesting that it was.
Background
13I turn to your background now, but I will do so only quite briefly. Your background was raised in oral submissions made on the plea, also in the written submissions, as well as in the report of Ms Lechner. There is, therefore, much before me as to your personal background and no reason at all for me to doubt that account or to restate it all in these reasons. There really is nothing in your family background that explains this offending. No doubt it is more connected up with your use and, indeed, your serious abuse of alcohol than anything else, and that is not mitigatory.
14Stated very briefly, you are 25 years of age. You were born in October 1993 in Khartoum, in Sudan. You were one of five children, the second youngest. Your family moved to Egypt when you were seven and in 2006, towards the end of that year, the family was sponsored to come out to this country, firstly moving to Sydney and then out to Wagga Wagga, before settling in Melbourne sometime in around 2012. Schooling was, I am told, sporadic in Egypt, but in this country, in fact, you completed Year 12 and then went on to TAFE where you did some courses. You had some short term jobs. You were the victim of a stabbing back in 2014 and that has obviously had a deep impact upon you. How, in such a setting, you thought it appropriate to arm yourself with a weapon such as a knife and brandish it at another person is anybody's guess, actually, but you did. Your life seemingly ran off the rails in the aftermath of that 2014 stabbing incident. Alcohol became a real and serious issue indeed. You seemingly have commenced to understand the strong link between the abuse of alcohol and your disinhibited and criminal conduct. But that surely must have been apparent for you over the last couple of years. You advise that you do not use other drugs. There is still family support, as evidenced by the presence of a number of family members, including your mother and she is back again here today. You have a daughter aged five who resides with her maternal grandmother, as I understand the written submissions. You have been in custody at Port Phillip Prison and you have not had visitors. It is not clear to me why that is so. You are working in prison and have also done courses.
15You have a criminal history and it is not overly long, but is actually quite worrying. It is plainly relevant to my task, even though it commences as recently as January 2017 for offending committed in 2016. You have three separate prior convictions for affray, which itself is really quite unusual, as well as convictions for a number of other violence offences. There is a prior conviction for attempted robbery. A couple of the summaries of your past offending were placed before me and marked as Exhibit B. You have received, since 2017, four community corrections order, two of those in combination with prison terms. The most recent one was in combination with a prison term and had judicial monitoring upon your release, with the first monitoring taking place in
December 2018. Well the offence that I am dealing with occurred on
24 January of this year. Two of the orders have had conditions dealing with alcohol abuse. You have breached two community corrections orders and you were on the community corrections order component of the November 2018 combination order at the time of this offending, as well as on two sets of bail. I was told that two breaches of community corrections order are outstanding. Currently, there is the earlier robbery on the same victim, which is outstanding, also another robbery, of which I know nothing, listed on 13 September, as well as another court date on 8 October for some unknown offences. I do not take into account the outstanding matters, as I cannot know how they will pan out other than taking into account the existence of the 'incident' on the
21 January, days before the matter I am dealing with. Nor, of course, do you fall to be sentenced a second time by me for any of your past offending. Those matters have been dealt with by a court and you have served the sentences imposed.16However the history plainly shows that you have not taken any of the chances offered to you by the courts. Prison has not deterred you. Nor have community based dispositions. I will try again to deter you from offending into the future. It is in fact a significant sentencing purpose here, as your counsel correctly concedes. He used the term that specific deterrence ‘looms large’ and he is right.
Ms Lechner’s Report
17I have read and I have taken into account the report of Ms Lechner. I was critical of the fact that, (1), she conducted the assessment by video-link and; (2), she failed to disclose that fact in the report. Neither of those things should be occurring. Surely, the courts should expect that experts must adhere to some minimum standards and if they will not, well the courts must require them to. It strikes me as incredible that these assessments are now being done by video-link, but routinely they are. I have had other experts give evidence before me, seriously questioning the reliability or the validity of any such assessment by way of video-link. Not to even disclose the existence of the video-link assessment is, in my judgment, a serious failing.
18However, I will still take into account the report despite the unsatisfactory nature of the assessment. It sets out your background and your level of functioning and comments on other matters, including your seeming insight into the need for some change and also a level of empathy for your victim and remorse or shame for your crime. Also it sets out the style of treatment which will be required into the future for you. You have had the unfortunate stabbing incident back in 2014 and that, to some extent, seems to have heralded your descent into alcohol abuse. There are symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder here. Your counsel concedes that there is no Verdins type mitigation at play here. He made clear that none of the principles apply in this case and undoubtedly that is so. The report though is still of use to me in my task. You are clearly not a hopeless cause and Ms Lechner says as much. There is the need for treatment and supervision upon your release.
Guilty Plea
19I turn then to some of the matters that have been raised in mitigation, the first of those is your guilty plea. You have pleaded guilty and you have done that at the earliest stage, and that is important. I must reward you for that. You have in this way facilitated the course of justice. You have taken responsibility for your crime and at that earliest of stages. It follows then, that the victim in this case has been spared the experience of actually giving evidence in this case or even worrying about that fact. That is of real value, as giving evidence can in fact be quite distressing. It has been altogether averted here.
20The community has been saved the time, the cost and the effort associated with a committal hearing in the Magistrates' Court or trial up in this court. So I take these various matters into account in mitigation, as I am required to.
Remorse
21I turn now then to the issue of remorse and do so briefly. A guilty plea is often indicative of some level of remorse. Your guilty plea was, as I say, entered at the earliest stage. Ms Lechner's report suggests there is actual remorse here and a level of victim empathy. That can only be a good thing. I am prepared to find, as your counsel suggests I should, that you do actually have some actual remorse here, and I do take that into account in your favour.
Rehabilitation
22What are your prospects then of rehabilitation? It is never easy to make that style of forecast, sitting up here. I must say, it would be far easier to be less guarded about those prospects if you had not misbehaved as you have over the last few years and had you complied with various court orders that had been imposed. But that is not the position and I have to look at the matter realistically. Your criminal history is, as I have said, quite worrying. You have not in the past been deterred. Efforts to keep you in the community and to then foster your rehabilitation have plainly not succeeded. You were on bail and a community corrections order at the time of this serious offending. You were, though, arrested back on 24 January of this year and you have been in custody since. That is the longest time you have spent in custody. You have been working and you have also been doing courses. You seem to be coming to some acceptance of the fact that you need to make very large changes in your lifestyle. Alcohol abuse has been massively problematic. You have pleaded guilty at the earliest stage and, as I say, I am prepared to accept that there is some real remorse here.
23You have had time then to reflect upon your crime and you will have more still, following the sentence I will shortly impose. Also, when I look at the background placed before me, you had actually done pretty well, given that background, a background that disclosed that you had come to this country as you did after a fairly disrupted developmental background, and you came here and learned English in your teens, and despite all those potential impediments, you went on to obtain your VCE. Up until the age of 21, you might well have been viewed as something of a success story. So that sort of progress in the past cannot just now be ignored. You are still relatively young and that cannot be ignored either and I will give it some weight, but I cannot just focus on that aspect. There are many other purposes of sentencing other than rehabilitation. Nor are you a youthful first offender. You have, as I have said, racked up some serious enough criminal history in a tight time frame and you have not taken the chances offered to you by the courts.
24You at least will still have family support and a place to go to and that is a good thing. But I suppose you have always had those things.
25I can only actually be quite guarded here. I am prepared to conclude that you have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation into the future, but that will be subject to you remaining completely abstinent from alcohol. That is what it will need to be it seems to me. You will need to be completely abstinent and that has been a real problem for you over a sizeable period.
Risk of deportation
26 I turn then to the issue of deportation and the submissions made as to the risk of that taking place in your case and the effect of the cancellation of your visa. A sentence of 12 months or more will bring into play the automatic cancellation provisions set up in the Commonwealth Migration Act. Your counsel, in fact, suggested that they are already in play, irrespective of the sentence imposed by this court, given the provisions permitting cumulation of past prison terms in making that calculation. I doubt if that is the correct reading of the provisions but that does not actually matter, as there is the certainty of being sentenced to a term greater than 12 months for this crime. I will work then on the theory that you will have your visa cancelled if sentenced to 12 months' or more imprisonment.
27 You would have rights under the Migration Act to request a review of any such determination and then further rights to review that decision if necessary in a tribunal or court or both. Where would that all end up? You are here on a visa. I work on the theory that your visa will be cancelled, and in terms of those review powers, I have no idea how they will play out. It would involve pure speculation on my part. However, as I do accept that a sentence of 12 months or more would lead to your visa cancellation, your life would surely be plunged into real uncertainty. It would make it that much harder for you to serve any sentence actually imposed. You would not know what would be happening at the end of the sentence. If your visa is cancelled, as one would expect it would be, you would then be looking at movement from prison, not to the community but to an immigration detention facility with the real prospect of deportation at the end of that process. That would surely be a deeply unsettling prospect to consider during the service of any sentence. In the absence of your successfully dissuading the relevant Minister or being looked on favourably upon some judicial review, you would then be facing the real prospect of being deported from this country and losing your right to remain in this country, a country where you have lived for all these years since the age of 14 or so. If that occurs, you would presumably be deported to a country where you have no real or meaningful connection at all. You left Sudan as a seven-year-old. That factual setting can be contrasted with the case of one who has recently come to this country with little sensible basis to assert any sort of genuine expectation of settling here. You have lived here since you were an early adolescent. It is your home. All of your true links, including of course family links, are in this country. It is a pretty unpalatable notion sending someone back to a homeland that they have no links to. However, it is not my role to make that decision. I am not sending you anywhere other than to prison and that is because I am passing an appropriate sentence for your crime. It is what I must do as a sentencing judge.
28 I do take into account though, the risks of deportation and the effect of that in the ways urged upon me by your counsel (as referred to in the Guden v The Queen [2010] VSCA 196 line of cases considered in Allouch v The Queen [2018] CSCA 244 and more recently in the case of Loftus v The Queen [2019] VSCA 24), to which I was referred by
Mr Sturges. It is not my task as a judge to select a sentence to actively avoid the operation of those provisions. Your counsel conceded that that was the law, that decision of Loftus makes that plain. It is not to the point whether I think the Migration Act provisions are good or bad, or sensible or not, or humane or otherwise. I am a judge, not a law maker. The laws are made by others. What I have to do is to pass an appropriate sentence for your crime, taking into account all of the relevant matters, including matters raised on your behalf. These impacts of deportation are raised by your counsel, Mr Sturges, in a mitigatory manner and the case law which I have referred to confirms that they are available to be considered in a mitigatory fashion by this court. I do take them into account but they cannot and must not dictate or control the sentencing outcome. See paragraph 81 of Loftus.
General remarks
29I turn then to make some general remarks about your offending. I must have regard to the nature and the seriousness of the offence before the court. Your counsel concedes this was serious offending. It was, after all a completed armed robbery. He concedes the vulnerable status of the victim and the frightening nature of this incursion. It was a soft target armed robbery. It is actually not that profitable to express a view as to where this particular offending fits on the spectrum of offence seriousness. The Court of Appeal says that there is not much benefit in doing that (see DPP v Weybury [2018] VSCA 120).
30Your counsel though, suggested that the armed robbery fell towards the lower end of offence seriousness.
31He went to the offence in a little bit of detail and argued that it was not sophisticated, had little planning, and carried with it almost inevitable detection owing to the absence of any disguise and your remaining at the scene. He submitted that it was a low value armed robbery. All of that is true.
32You still selected this shop. That was not accidental. You carried and produced a knife and then produced it within the shop. You were in quite close proximity to your victim and you were behaving unpredictably. You unfolded the knife and uttered words laced with threat. You were a very imposing figure at the time. You are a large man, well over six feet in height. You were very drunk as well and that is the context, but it does not fully explain this offence. This offence undoubtedly had some connection to the past incident that I have described, that incident occurring a few days before. You made that plain enough at the scene. The fact is your self-induced intoxication is no excuse at all.
33This offence is obviously a very long way removed from the most serious examples of the crime of armed robbery, but in my assessment it is removed from the least serious examples where, for instance, there may be an unplanned meeting of groups out on the street and maybe a spontaneous demand made, perhaps even with the use of a weapon found at the scene and used in an opportunistic fashion; that is not what I am dealing with.
34This was a brazen offence by a man who, at the time, was on both a community corrections order and two sets of bail. Offending carried out in daylight hours in a clothing shop, of all places, is incredible, really. You brandished what was a real weapon. This was serious offending, make no mistake about it.
Current Sentencing Practice and Offence Gravity
35I take into account, as I must, current sentencing practices, though it is not a single controlling factor. I have looked at the Sentencing Advisory Council snapshot No. 2012 of 2018, which relates to the offence of armed robbery. The most common sentence of imprisonment where imprisonment was selected for this offence was between three years to less than four years.
36I have considered the Judicial College of Victoria Sentencing Manual which has an overview of sentences imposed for this crime. What I have done is I have gone to those portions dealing with what are said to be low-range, armed robbery sentences, see 32.15, 2.2 and 2.4.
37Having done all of that though, I say this. The outcome in other cases does not dictate the actual sentence to be imposed in this case. That is because other sentencing decisions are in no way precedents to be followed. Every case is very different and so too is every offender. Statistical material always has inherent limitations. I have to pass an appropriate sentence in your case for your crime and it is not a mathematical or statistical exercise.
38As I have said already, armed robbery is an inherently serious criminal offence and it is not mitigatory at all that you committed it whilst heavily intoxicated or, for that matter that you cannot remember it. Offences such as these can escalate out of control, sometimes quite wildly. How do you know how the shop assistant may react? Or for that matter, how you may react if there is some resistance from the victim or even a bystander such as the customer who was present or the friend of the victim who was there at the counter? Especially when you, the person committing the crime, are totally inebriated.
39They are inherently dangerous offences and they can escalate badly out of control. Happily, for all concerned, including you, this crime did not escalate and what I must do is sentence you for what you did.
40This sort of crime has to be roundly denounced by the court. Soft-target armed robberies are, as I say, common. Your counsel conceded the prevalence of this style of offending. The Judicial College of Victoria material that I have referred to, it spells out just how common they are. People working in these positions within retail outlets must be protected by the courts.
41Sentencing always involves a balancing of a number of purposes. These purposes are set out in within the Sentencing Act. One of those purposes is the rehabilitation of the offender before the court; I do not ignore that purpose at all. I think there are reasonable prospects for your rehabilitation. Your relative youth is not unimportant. I give it weight. But you were not some silly teenager. You were an adult and one with a bit of recent history before the courts, courts which have tried to deter you from offending and lead you away from offending to no effect.
42I have to punish you justly and proportionately. I have to give significant weight to specific deterrence here, owing to the nature of the offending and the chronology of offending and your history before the courts.
43I must deter you from committing a crime such as this ever again. That is obviously important here. I must also give real weight to the need for community protection in this sentencing task. That again, is an obvious and important consideration.
44General deterrence is also an important sentencing purpose. The courts have to spell out explicitly to others in the community that conduct such as this will be dealt with sternly. Like-minded potential offenders, and there are seemingly plenty of them out there, must understand that serious conduct such as this will be met with significant punishment. I must pay regard to the offence maximum, as well as to the impact of your offence.
Combination
45Prison is a disposition of last resort for any court. If there is any other option open to the court, then of course it must be selected. That is the law. Your counsel conceded the inevitability of a prison term here but suggests that it is open to ultimately release you onto a community corrections order. Not immediately, but rather after the service of potentially a substantial additional period. He argued that a combination type sentence was open to me and could achieve all the purposes of sentencing. How that sits with the submissions as to the automatic visa cancellation provisions is hard to follow, given that cancellation would not leave you in a position to even comply with any community corrections order. It strikes me as strange business that I should take into account the risk of cancellation and the effect of that in mitigation, but then somehow put it from my mind in terms of the practicalities of engaging on a community corrections order. However, I leave that issue for others to consider in another case, as it is in no way contributing to my decision to reject the submission as to the availability of a combination type sentence here.
46I do not believe I can proceed in the way urged upon me for a number of reasons. Your offending is too serious. I must adequately recognise the nature and the gravity of your crime and pay adequate regard to the need to denounce, to punish and to deter you and others, as well as to protect the community. You also have breached two such orders with two other breaches waiting in the wings, as you were on that second combination order when you chose to commit this crime. I have no confidence at all in such an order being in any way effective in your case. It would certainly not protect the community, in my judgment.
47Such a disposition as that pressed by your counsel would, in my assessment, not achieve all the purposes of sentencing, including the need to punish, to denounce, to protect and to deter. I am left in no doubt that it is not open to me to structure a sentence such that a community corrections order is available.
48It is plain to me then that the only appropriate disposition is a sizeable term of imprisonment. I will provide for your possible release, and that is all it is, a possibility for an earlier release by fixing a non-parole period. I can make no assumptions at all as to your being released at that earlier stage. In fact, I cannot in any way factor that in or take it into account at all. I must act on the basis that you will serve every day of the head sentence I will shortly pronounce. Whether you are released or not prior to the lapse of the head sentence will depend entirely on the decision of the Adult Parole Board. It will be between you and them. They, incidentally, would be in a far superior position to assess your prospects and your readiness for release closer to that point in time than a judge could ever be in imposing a sizeable prison sentence extending your custodial liability well into the future with release by way of a community corrections order suggested by your counsel to be perhaps a year down the track. The Adult Parole Board also would have a far more immediate ability to haul you back into custody should you fail to comply with your release on licence, should that occur, in contrast to the leisurely manner in which breaches of community corrections order are brought back to court. Protection of the community is a reasonably significant factor here, as I have said. I just do not believe a community corrections order adequately recognises that sentencing purpose or many others.
49I have looked at the sentence that I am about to impose to guard against the imposition of a crushing outcome and to ensure that it is commensurate with the overall gravity of your crime.
Ancillary – 464ZF
50There are two ancillary orders here and I have signed those orders. The first of those is an application for a forensic sample. It is not opposed. I order pursuant to s.464ZF of the Crimes Act that you undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a scraping from your mouth in accordance with sub-division 30A of part 3 of the Crimes Act, until a sample of sufficient standard is obtained for placement on the database.
51I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make this order, that it is justified owing to the seriousness of the circumstances of the offence, the existence of prior convictions, the fact that the order is not opposed and that I judge it to be in the public interest.
52What this deals with then is the forensic sample. Now someone in a position of authority will approach you in custody and run a swab around the inside of your mouth to take a forensic sample for placement on the database. It is not a particular invasive procedure. I have authorised the least invasive process, being the scraping from your mouth. I have not authorised a blood sample at this stage. But I have to tell you that the authorities can use reasonable force to enable that procedure to be conducted, but it should not be an issue for you. I have signed that order.
Disposal
53Secondly, there is a disposal order in relation to the knife that was used. Obviously enough, it is connected up with this offence and the criteria for making such an order under s.78 of the Confiscation Act is well and truly satisfied. I order pursuant to those provisions, the forfeiture to the State of the knife and I direct that it be handled in the manner contemplated in the order which I have signed.
54Yes, all right, well that competes the ancillary matters then. So Mr Dau, would you just stand up then briefly please?
Sentence
55On the charge of armed robbery, that is Charge 1 on the indictment, I convict and sentence you to 33 months' or two years' and nine months' imprisonment.
Total Effective Sentence
56That is the only sentence and therefore the total effective sentence here is 33 months' imprisonment.
Non-Parole Period
57I fix a period of 19 months, during which you will not be eligible for release on parole.
Section 18 – pre-sentence detention
58You have already served 207 days by way of pre-sentence detention and that declaration is entered into the records of the court.
6AAA
59I have taken into account your guilty plea.
60Had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty of this offence by a jury, I would have convicted and sentenced you to four and a half years' imprisonment. I would have fixed a non-parole period in that setting of three years. So that also is to be entered into the records of the court. Just have a seat then for a moment. I will see if there is anything else I need to deal with.
61Are there any other matters at all?
62COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
63HIS HONOUR: Will you go see him downstairs, Mr White?
64MR WHITE: Yes, Your Honour.
65HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. All right, well look, that completes the matter then, Mr Dau, so Mr White will come down and see you downstairs, all right? So if Mr Dau can be removed, thank you.
66Yes, all right, I have signed that order. Thank you.
- - -
0
3
0