Director of Public Prosecutions v Davies - [2017] VCC 1101

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised
(Not) Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR -13-01410

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

BRENDAN DAVIES

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 April 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Davies
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VCC 1101

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr Prosecutor	Office of Public Prosecutions
The Accused was not represented	In Person

Pages 1 - 33

HIS HONOUR:

1Brendan Davies, on 25 November 2016, a jury found you guilty of five charges of arson. The first two verdicts were by majority. The remaining three verdicts were unanimous. Firstly, I turn to a brief analysis of the offences themselves. The following mentioned facts are, in my view, consistent with the jury verdicts.
2During the course of the investigation into the fires, the police became aware of a website. All the evidence in the trial made it overwhelmingly clear that you were the creator and author of the website. The content of the website revealed that you harboured a deep-seated and dangerous hatred for society. The basis for this was what you believed were the crimes and harm wreaked by society on you. In particular, you claim that the family as an institution inherently caused harm to children. You asserted that you as a child and indeed other children were the subject of actual physical and mental abuse within the family.
3I do not propose to articulate any more of this misguided broad ranging philosophy at this stage, save to say that you, Mr Davies, wrote and spoke at length about it. The point is that your beliefs are deeply ingrained.
4You came to the view that you were one of the few in our society who knew the real truth about society and human behaviour. It was a truth in your mindset that the so-called authorities or powers that be ensured remained hidden from the majority. You referred to your philosophy as the hidden or forbidden truth. You as one who knew the real truth were enlightened or as you called yourself a seer. So it was that the character or persona that you used as a disguise on your website and other connected media was a character with a nonsensical name of Seer Travis Truman.
5As this character or persona, Seer Travis Truman, you Mr Davies made YouTube videos and interlinked them with your website. The prosecution put three videos before the jury in which you, Mr Davies, in frightening disguise spoke of using random arson attacks as a tool of vengeance or revenge on society. You, Mr Davies, put other videos and excerpts on the website on the YouTube channel into evidence before the jury. However, at this point, what is important to understand in terms of analysis of the gravity of the crimes you committed and your moral culpability is that the arson videos relied on by the prosecution are you, Mr Davies, preaching what you intended to put into practice.
6The five arson attacks were random and plainly motivated by your deeply disturbed and dangerous mindset that you were entitled to wreak revenge and vengeance on society. In one of your YouTube videos, you spoke as follows, "I hope that has been instructive, whether or not you are an arsonist or perhaps you are student studying criminology or just for personal information. However, at the same time, I couldn't care less whether or not you do these things or whether or not you find any value in this video. I am making this video for my benefit, for my reasons and I am going to post this video okay as I see fit. Okay, now as my final word is that society brings these attacks on itself. It absolutely deserves them. The individuals who undertake these actions have got every right to do so and society's rotten, vile, disgusting system of right arsehole citizen slags who obviously deserve whatever criminals thrust their way."
7With this motivation, the first of your crimes was a blatant attack on an obviously pillar of civil society, a local suburban police station. In the early hours of
20 January 2011, you drove your car from your house in Rowville to a small suburban street in close proximity to the Mount Waverley police station. The tracking device had your car parked at that location for sufficient time for you to get out and go to the police station building. You had accelerant with you and the capacity to set the fire alight. Petrol was used to set a fire in a cavity in the external facing wall of the police station. As was the case with all fires, you did not break into any premises but rather you started the fire at one seat from the outside using accelerants in one form or another. The police station was, fortunately, unoccupied at the time.
8The Mount Waverley police station fire, thankfully, did not spread beyond the cavity where it was started. This was, it seems to me, by sheer luck as the damage to the copper telecommunications wires in the wall cavity revealed that there was significant intensity in the fire. The phone line and the internet facilities in the police station were destroyed. No small matter in respect of a police station with a need to be available for immediate communications.
9This was, in my view, a blatant attack on Victoria Police. I have formed the view based on all the evidence in these proceedings that you have a particular disdain for the justice system and a deep set hatred of the police. This fire, although thankfully limited as to the physical damage remains, in my view, a very concerning crime as an attack on part of the justice system. The courts and parliament have always considered attacks on police and the police force to be very serious matters. In my view, your intent was to burn the police station to the ground. It is of limited mitigatory importance that by sheer luck, the fire did not take hold and you did not achieve your aim.
10The prosecution, in considering this matter, submitted that this was a fire of mid-range seriousness. The prosecution submitted that the nature of the location very strongly suggests that you deliberately chose a police station for what it stood for, namely to uphold the law and protect citizens. The prosecution submitted this characteristic aggravates the offence. In my view, this proposition is a sound one.
11The second arson was committed sometime between the late hours of
20 January and the early hours of 21 January 2011. The location of this fire was the presbytery of St Mary's Church in East St Kilda. This was the only fire outside the broad geographical area reasonably close to where you had lived for a number of years in Willow Avenue, Glen Waverley. The fire was a single seat fire against the rear French doors of the presbytery. You had driven from your home in Rowville to the St Kilda area and cruised around the area, passing the site of the arson on a number of occasions. Ultimately, you parked on Dandenong Road and made your way passed the church itself to the rear of the property where you set the fire.
12The difference in respect of this arson is that this was a property obviously the presbytery, that is a place where someone lived. In fact, in this case, the priest, Father Moran, was upstairs asleep in his presbytery. In lighting the fire, you used accelerant but fortuitously, the blaze did not take hold and was restricted to the door and its surrounds. In respect of this fire, I am of the view to the standard beyond reasonable doubt that this was an attack on another aspect of civil society, a religious building.
13It was an attack that, like many arsons, caused risk. While it is plain that you are not to be punished for any specific crime of endangerment to the priest, such a charge being withdrawn by the prosecution at an early point, nonetheless this, like the other arsons, presented a real danger to the public. The gravity of this offence is significant notwithstanding that by good fortune the intent to cause significant damage was not realised. Again, the prosecution submitted this was a crime at mid-range of seriousness. There is nothing to indicate that you knew or took any steps to ascertain whether anyone was in fact in the building.
14The third arson was also an attack on a church building itself,
St Oswald's Anglican Church in Ashburton. That arson was committed in the early hours of 26 January 2011. The method here was to set a fire using firelighters next to a bottle of petrol. The intent was to have the firelighters melt the plastic bottle, releasing the fuel and thereby causing the fire to enlargen with the intent that it burn they church building extensively, if not to the ground.
15This timing device method reveals the level of planning involved. Fortunately, the firelighters did not cause the fuel to be released and the damage to the door was in the end minor. In my view, as a consequence of the minimal damage, this fire is at the lowest end of the seriousness of all the fires. That said, the appellate authorities are clear that a fortunate but unintended consequence where a fire goes out without causing much damage is of limited benefit to an accused who had an intention to cause significant damage.
16It is plain from all the circumstances including particularly the use of the firelighters and the bottle of accelerant that you intended this to be a significant fire, causing a good deal of damage, if not total destruction of the building. The use of what was, in effect, a timing device to slowly bring about the fire while you were able to escape back to your premises is particular concerning, revealing the sophisticated planning that you engaged in, in order to perpetrate your crimes.
17The fourth arson was committed in the early hours of 31 January 2011 on Tanners Swiss Bakery and Patisserie in Blackburn Road, Mount Waverley. The surveillance and tracking device evidence reveal that you drove your car to the area at the rear of the bakery and parked. You then went to the back of the shop and used accelerant to set the building ablaze. You were then seen driving in the streets in the near vicinity of the bakery proximate to the time of the fire. You were followed directly back to your house in Rowville. The fire on this occasion did cause extensive damage especially to the rear of the bakery. It caused the business significant loss as well as loss to the owners of the building.
18The owner of the business and the owner of the free hold made victim impact statements. You took issue with aspects of the victim impact statements. You sought to cross-examine the victims and in particular the owner of the business, who had given evidence at the trial and had been subject to your cross-examination. It seemed that you wished to test the victim on the veracity of his insurance claims, you having subpoenaed the insurance files. You had issues with the amounts paid out by the insurers and ultimately, you wished to cross-examine the representatives of the insurers when they gave evidence on the plea.
19I declined to allow any of those who had made victim impact statements to be called and to be cross-examined by you. I have applied the law, in particular Luciano, as to a flexible approach to victim impact statements.
20What was said by the owner of the bakery business was in part as follows, "The effect of the crime that took place has had a negative impact on my life. It has caused me to lose my business, affected my personal life including relationships with my friends, family, has impacted my marriage. Through the impact of the crime, it led to a breakdown in my life, including three months of being unable to work, to even go back to the workplace due to deep depression, which required medical help."
21He went on, "I have not been able to go back to my profession but have walked away from it because of the depression that it causes. I have had to start my life again." He says, "The rebuilding of mental and physical strain on oneself is something I would wish on no one." He says, "It is a horrible feeling of loss and anger, something you have to try to control, asking why me, what did I do to deserve such disrespect, something that you will never know, but must move forward." He says he's trying to put the past behind him, but it is easier said than done, he would not wish this on anyone.
22The owner of the building, in his victim impact statement he read to the court set out the impact on those that owned the business. Just a few of the matters he raised were, "That this act has significantly affected both myself and my family business group on multiple and substantial levels over a long period of time." He indicated that it affected them emotionally, financially, mentally, socially, on both personal life and business levels. He said that once the fire was discovered, "This was the beginning of an ongoing, destructive and sometimes traumatic set of experiences, being triggered over the next several years."
23I note that he concluded with one final statement that he wished to make that the victim impact that he had shared with the court, himself and all those that he spoke for have chosen not to remain victimised and to move on with strength and dignity, to restore a personal and business life to its rightful place of continued and increasing success.
24In my view, the gravity of the fourth arson is significant. The destruction of a significant part of a building causing a small family business to close is serious offending. It was a fire in a building that was in a strip of shops on a major road. The risk to other properties was obvious. This was a brazen and random attack where you were able to access the property from the nearby street at the rear and quickly make your escape. Although you took issue with the value of the losses caused by your crime, the evidence of the representatives of the various insurance companies made it unassailably clear that the losses were extensive being in excess of $400,000.
25The prosecution submitted the arson should be seen in the mid to upper-range. In my view, this crime is well in that broad range and in my view, towards the upper sector of it.
26The final fire was at the Croxley Childcare Centre in the early hours of
3 February 2011. This was a building at the end of a dead end street that you could access from the laneway, running alongside a railway line. The surveillance officers had followed you into a nearby street where you parked and set off on foot. You were seen to go to the laneway that ran alongside the railway line. Another surveillance officer on foot in that laneway saw you running back along the laneway towards where you had parked your car. You were then seen again by the first surveillance officer getting into your car and driving off.
27The surveillance officer who had been on foot went further to where you had been to investigate what you had been up to. He quickly saw the building alight. He first thought it was a domestic home, which is not surprising given how it looked and he desperately tried to raise the alarm with any occupants. He then saw it was a childcare centre and came to the conclusion it was likely to be unoccupied at that time of night. Thankfully it was unoccupied because, despite the quick response of the fire brigade, and the police, the building was destroyed. You had again used accelerant underneath the building to set it ablaze.
28Once the surveillance officer, who was on foot informed others of the fire that he saw, it prompted the police to instigate your arrest. You were arrested on the nearby freeway driving back to your home. You were unco-operative on your arrest and the police had to use capsicum spray to subdue you. Thereafter, by and large, you made a no comment record of interview.
29The search of your car and subsequently your room in your mother's house where you lived revealed significant incriminating evidence. I do not propose to outline each aspect save that the material found, both physical and digital established a compelling case for the prosecution that you were the arsonist involved in the five fires.
30To return to the childcare centre fire. In my view, it was an arson of real seriousness. The cost of the arson was again in excess of $400,000. In considering the relative gravity of any crime, a more serious example can always be imagined. The prosecution in respect of this fire and the previous fires submitted that the gravity was in the mid to upper range of seriousness. However, this fire in a suburban street, destroying a building and a viable and necessary small business is an arson of grave proportions. The submission of the prosecution of mid to upper range is accurate by broad. I see this arson in the upper range of seriousness. The impact on the victim was also significant and adds to the seriousness of your crime.
31As was made plain from the moment the victim impact statements were filed and served, there were parts of the victim impact statement of the owner of the childcare centre that I will not take into account. Those aspects that I will not take into account is where the victim, as the owner of the childcare business, speculates on the effect of the fire on the children and their parents. In general terms, I take as part of the sentencing synthesis that the random destruction of the childcare centre would cause difficulty for the clients of the business who would have to make adjustments in what I see as none too straightforward circumstances. The lives of employees would have been thrown into turmoil. I say no more about those aspects of the victim impact statement.
32However, what the owner of the business said about the effect on her as the victim is important. She wrote, "After the fire, I lost my livelihood, which led to considerable financial stress. I lost my house as I had to repay the loans to the bank which were mortgaged against my house. It also contributed to the eventual breakup of my marriage. The entire event has changed my attitude to small business and I would never open my own business again due to the loss financially and emotionally. I am now an employee with little freedom to be with and support my children during working hours. I am now accountable to someone else for the rest of my working life which will be past retirement age."
33She goes on to say with dignity, "Due to the length of time that has passed, I have forgiven the perpetrator of the crime of arson against my business in Hunter Street, Glen Waverley."
34As I have said, each of the crimes have been subject to submissions as to the gravity involved. I have mentioned how the prosecution categorised these offences. Your submissions were not as specific, but I take it that you contend that what the prosecution says as to gravity is an overreach. In particular, you say the first three fires were of such limited damage as to be at the lowest end of the scale. What needs to be considered here is each fire was part of a campaign and thus while some by virtue of limited damage could at first blush be categorised as low on the scale, nonetheless the gravity of each offence is the more serious because of the campaign you waged to cause random damage and engender fear in ordinary members of the community.
35As required by the Sentencing Act, I not only have to assess the gravity of your crimes, but also your moral culpability. You submitted by reason of an impaired mental functioning being the combination of anxiety, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and being on the Autism Spectrum, your moral culpability ought be seen as less than might otherwise be the case. The prosecution oppose such a view being taken of your moral culpability. Thus, I will defer my conclusion on this matter until I have considered other aspects of your personal circumstances and then return to what is said to be your impaired mental functioning.

36As to your personal circumstances, what stands out is your ingrained criminality. You are now 38 having been born on 4 July 1978. Your adult criminal convictions and court appearances commenced in 1997 when you were just age 18 or so. There have been, on my count, over 40 crimes committed by you since, dealt with by a dozen court hearings, the last three including this matter heard in the County Court.
37On the first occasion you were before the courts, it was at the Magistrates' Court for relevant and concerning offences of three charges of stalking, two charges of criminal damage and four charges of assault and unlawful on premises. I note by way of penalty, the matter was adjourned for a year without a conviction being recorded.
38In 2004, you were back before the Magistrates' Court on three further occasions for numerous offences, the most concerning being your regular possession of weapons. You were sentenced to terms of imprisonment which ultimately were reduced on appeal by the County Court in September 2004. It was earlier in 2004, on 13 March 2004 to be precise, when you committed your first arson. Ultimately, you pleaded guilty to this charge before Judge Dyett of the County Court who imposed sentence on you on 25 November 2005. You had, to that time, spent 434 days in custody on remand. You were sentenced to three years with a minimum non-parole period of 15 months. That is, near enough to the time you had already spent in custody. What seems clear enough is that you spent a good deal of 2004 and all of 2005 in custody.
39Parole was not granted to you as a consequence of your attitude to what was obviously a need for psychological assessment and treatment to aid in rehabilitation. Thus, you remained in custody through 2006.
40I need to pause to provide more details of your arson offence committed in 2004. In this regard, I rely on the reasons for sentence of Judge Dyett, dated 25 November 2005. His Honour said this,
"Brendan Ian Davies, you have pleaded guilty to one count of arson. At about 3.55 am on Saturday 13 March 2004, you went to the BP Express service station at the corner of Highbury Road and Blackburn Glen Waverley and asked the console operator if you could borrow a petrol container. When he told you, you would have first lodge a deposit and produce some proof of identification, you visited the Burwood East Kmart store located nearby and purchased a red petrol container. You then returned to the BP Express service station and purchased $10 worth of petrol with a credit card in your name and pumped petrol into the red petrol container. After that, you walked some 1.5 kilometres from the BP Express service station to your mother's home at 66 Willows Grove, Glen Waverley, where you poured petrol around the alcoves surrounding the front door, left the petrol container on the front doorstep, you then ignited the petrol and left the scene.
"The fire burnt the wooden front door, the wooden electricity box, located on the left hand side of the alcove and spread to the eaves and rafters inside the roof above the bedroom on the front door side of the house. The fire woke your brother, Evan, who alerted your mother and brother, Robert, who were the only occupants of the house. They all escaped via the backdoor. On the way out, Evan telephoned the fire brigade. Firemen arrived and removed tiles from the roof and the fibrosed sheeting under the eaves to extinguish the fires. Fortunately, the fire was contained before significantly penetrating the house. According to your mother's affidavit however the damage cost $17,000 to rectify.
"You were arrested at about 9.10 am the next day, Sunday 14 March 2004. Police officers searched your backpack and found 28 firelighters, a packet of ten boxes of Redhead matches, two candles, a torch and two packets of sparklers. You claimed you needed these items for camping and you denied lighting the fire."

41The prior arson conviction, which resulted in imprisonment for three years with a minimum non-parole period of 15 months is most concerning. The methods used, the overall circumstances all reveal that your resort to arson emerged at an earlier point. It shows, like these offences, planning and determination to use dangerous fire lighting behaviour to cause damage. I will return to matters raised in Judge Dyett's sentencing remarks concerning your upbringing and the support of your parents.
42You were released from prison, it seems, in 2006 without any parole supervision. It seems you resumed living with your mother. Your next set of crimes were committed on 1 February 2009. They are not in a strict sense prior convictions in relation to the arson offending before me, as you were not found guilty of these offences and sentenced until 13 April 2012 when Judge Howie of the County Court imposed a term of imprisonment of three years with a minimum non-parole period of 18 months. I note that the head sentence imposed by Judge Howie was reduced by order of the Court of Appeal by two months as a consequence of a successful appeal against conviction for a charge of handling stolen goods.
43Aspects of the circumstances of the crimes you committed in February 2009 are particularly troubling. I again rely on the sentencing remarks, in this case, those of Judge Howie. Restricting my analysis to one charge arising from one of the trials that were run before Judge Howie.
"Brendan Davies, on 28 July 2011, you were found guilty by jury verdict of the offence of being armed with a controlled weapon with criminal intent. The maximum penalty for this offence is a term of imprisonment of five years. The facts relating to the offence may be briefly stated. Shortly after midnight on 1 February 2009, your car was observed in King Street, Blackburn parked outside the Butterfly Brothel. Shortly after that, your car was intercepted by police and searched. On the floor beside the driver's seat, they found a knife. It was a large kitchen knife with a blade in a cardboard sheath. In the front of the car was a notebook which contained notes under the headings, Project Rookie and Hit Kit Inventory. In the boot of the car, the police located number plates other than the number plates on your car, garbage bags, plastic ties, gloves, tape, orange rope, handcuffs and a hammer.
"The prosecution case was that you were armed with a knife with the intention of committing a crime of the kind described in the notes, namely to kidnap and harm a female prostitute. The notes were of a disturbing sinister character with an inventory of actions under the heading Project Rookie, including check to see if she SMSs after I finish, change over plates ASAP, look through her messages, find a client, SMS him from her phone, completely destroy the phone, strip her, put clothes in garbage bag, collect all jewellery and put in bag, cut her nails, place all ten clipped nails in bag, remove her teeth, put into bag or leave with body, remove all ties et cetera before disposal."

44On another page of the notebook under the heading, Hit Kit Inventory listed a number of items such as gloves, knife, tape, cord, ropes, cuffs.
45The circumstances of this crime are obviously extremely troubling. Although not an arson, it is criminality that significantly adds to the need for the community to be protected from you. As noted, you were arrested for the arson offences before me on 3 February 2011. Accordingly, you were on bail at the time of the offences ultimately dealt with by Judge Howie. The fact that you were on bail at the time that you committed these arson offences is an aggravating factor, made the more so in your case because one of the specific conditions of your bail was a night time curfew which you routinely breached in order to commit the arsons, which were all committed in the dead of the night.
46On any assessment, your prior offending gives rise to a heightened need for deterrence to you and a real need for protection of the community from your criminality. Without more, your conduct and motivation in committing these arsons and your very bad history of relevant offending would lead me to consider protection of the community from you as a very prominent sentencing consideration. However, by reason of your prior history of committing arson and your conduct here in committing five arsons, you are to be declared a serious arson offender.
47The fact that the serious offender provisions of the Sentencing Act are engaged calls for careful analysis. That is as a consequence of the prosecution submitting that this is one of the rare cases where a disproportionate sentence ought be imposed. In those circumstances, it is necessary to outline what the Sentencing Act says as to the serious offender provisions.
48It reads at s.6D, I will not read the introductory matters which outlines if someone is a serious offender and commits a relevant offence, which is you, and imprisonment is justified, it goes on,
"The Court in determining the length of that sentence, (a) must regard the protection of the community from the offender as the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed and, (b), may in order to achieve that purpose impose a sentence longer than that which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence considered in light of its objective circumstances."

49Section 6E is relevant because there are multiple offences that you have committed. It reads
"Every term of imprisonment imposed by a court on a serious offender for a relevant offence must, unless otherwise directed by the court, be served cumulatively on any uncompleted sentence or sentences of imprisonment imposed on that offender, whether before or at the same time as that term."

50The effect of the serious offender provisions of the Sentencing Act are as follows. One, I am to regard protection of the community as the primary sentencing purpose. Two, in order to achieve that purpose, I can exercise a discretion to impose a disproportionate sentence and three, I am to impose cumulation for each sentence unless I otherwise order. These are significant sentencing discretions that enable a sentencing judge to move beyond fundamental sentencing principles of proportionality and totality. The parliament has created these provisions because those like you who are serious offenders are to be treated differently to ordinary offenders.
51As has been made clear by the High Court and our Court of Appeal, I cannot ignore the intention of parliament simply because the principles of proportionality and totality are fundamental in the exercise of the ordinary sentencing discretion. However, the legislation makes it clear that I must first come to a conclusions about the length of a proportionate sentence, taking into account all matters, objecting and subjective, engaging in the standard task of instinctive synthesis, before I could move to a sentence that is greater than the proportionate sentence for the offence, considered in the light of its objective circumstances.
52In that sense, I will move through what are the usual sentencing factors and purposes to determine a proportionate sentence before returning to the issue of whether a disproportionate sentence is required in order to achieve protection of the community. The statutory requirement that in determining the length of your sentence, I must regard protection of the community as a principal purpose is obviously part of the synthesis in arriving at what is a proportionate sentence, so too is the issue of cumulation.
53I will not dwell on your behaviour or conduct that is involved in these five arsons. I have outlined the seriousness and the inherent danger and risks involved. As to your motivation, as I have outlined, there is no doubt whatsoever that you created the YouTube videos and in them and other materials, expressed your dangerous philosophies and more importantly, your adherence to the view that arson is a legitimate weapon for you and others who are similarly criminally minded, to use against the community and the ordinary people who make up our community.
54Your submission was that I must be careful not to punish you for merely holding or expressing unorthodox beliefs. It is a submission that I keep well in mind. However, on this topic, a critically important factor that elevates you from someone with unorthodox beliefs about society into a dangerous criminal is that you advocate the use of arson as a weapon of vengeance against society on the basis that you consider society has done wrong to you and others and deserves punishment by criminal means. However, beyond your frightening advocacy of arson as a weapon, you in fact put those words that you preached into practical effect by your relentless campaign of destructive fires.
55Thus, in your case, this is not a mere matter of you holding particularly unorthodox views. Rather, the nature of your beliefs, and importantly your practical implementation is a matter for legitimate consideration in my assessment of the need to protect the community from you as well as the need for deterrence to you in particular and deterrence generally.
56I return to other aspects of your personal circumstances. From all the material, what can be confidently concluded is that you are the youngest child of three sons who were, as mentioned, sleeping when you set fire to the family home in 2004. You were raised predominantly in the eastern suburbs by your mother and father. They separated when you were 17. Your schooling came to an end when you were midway through Year 9. You have never been employed. You have been in receipt of a disability pension when not in gaol since the age of about 18.
57After you parents separated, you continued to live with your mother and siblings. Despite only being in receipt of a disability pension, you managed to save and purchase a property in Wonthaggi. Your arson of the family home in 2004 which saw you incarcerated resulted in you losing that property. Of interest in this regard is what Judge Dyett said in his sentencing remarks about you moving out of the family home and your parents'.
58He said,
"Both your parents who are very supportive of you gave evidence before me yesterday to the effect that encouraging you to live on your own was a mistake and your mother is willing to let you resume with her when you are released from custody."

59I refer to this as you make a great deal of what you say you experienced during your upbringing as being in essence a daily regime of deeply scarring physical and mental abuse. In this regard, I note that it is always relevant to a sentencing task to establish as far as it can be done any aspect of an offender's upbringing that may cast light on the offending behaviour or future prospects. However, you submission goes further to contend that the circumstances of your upbringing gave rise to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and anxiety. Those conditions form part of what you say is an impaired mental functioning, which in turn enlivens the mitigatory matters articulated in the important case of Verdins & Ors v The Queen.
60Thus, following the appellate court's guidance, post Verdins, it is necessary to examine all aspects of your claimed impaired mental functioning, including your upbringing and to analyse it with real rigour. The other aspect of your impaired mental functioning is your autism. Your autism is not of the level or kind that diminishes your intellect. The expert psychologists who have assessed you conclude that you are above average intelligence. That has been the assessment of the many judges who have had to deal with you over the years, including me. What more needs to be said about your autism can be deferred until I have dealt with other aspects of this alleged impaired mental functioning, being Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and anxiety.
61In respect of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and anxiety arising from your upbringing, it seems clear enough that you had difficulties at school because of your autism disorder, which was much less understood in the 1980s and the 1990s than now. I have referred to what Judge Dyett said as to your supportive parents at the time of the plea before him. His Honour also had the benefit of a report of April 2004 from Dr Ruth Vine, the very experienced forensic psychiatrist. What was said of that report was brief and not specific to any psychiatric or any condition arising from your upbringing.
62His Honour said this
"According to the report of Dr Ruth G. Vine, consultant psychiatrist of 20 April 2004 and to your mother's evidence, you suffered from poor physical health during childhood and you were also treated by a child psychiatrist for four years with no effective improvement."

63Judge Dyett's remarks went on to note that you were eventually diagnosed by Vicki Bitsika, a psychologist as suffering from what was then known as Asperger's Syndrome. You have provided to me a part of that report though no criticism is made of the fact that it is incomplete, as it was a report prepared when you were 16 years old. Precisely what brought about the report remains unclear. The testing reveals, as I have said, that you have an autism disorder. In parts the of the report I have, there was no reference to your upbringing or family life one way or the other.
64Later, you were seen by Pamela Matthews, a psychologist, on 13 March 2012 for medico-legal purposes following the jury's verdicts in the trials before Judge Howie. In her report under the heading, Psychosocial History, she wrote as follows of your account to her in these term:
"His father, a mechanical engineer, had a drinking problem and no friends. He was quite a bully and violent towards Mr Davies. His mother, he described as cold, 'Mentally unbalanced,' and physically, emotionally and verbally abusive. He also felt bullied by both his older brothers."

65In her psychometric testing, she used tools to aid her in concluding that you met the full criterion for Asperger's Syndrome. What was found or noted were the following matters, which is not the full list as many of the matters listed were specific to the offending than before Judge Howie. She said that you met the following criteria in respect of the standard test for Asperger's Syndrome.
"Significant failure to develop peer relationships to a developmental level, no interest in pleasing others, no spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests or achievements, lack of social reciprocally, difficulty understanding social situations and other people's thoughts and feelings and in particular, extremely difficult in understanding the structure of the interview and remaining on tasks in regard to the writer's questions. Extremely repetitive and stereotype patterns of interests, adherence to inflexible routines, tendency to think issues black and white, quite rigid in your focus and views, tendency to turn conversation back to your topic of interest, pedantic style of speaking, inclusion of too much detail, off topic and not enough detail on topic, inability to notice or respond to social cues, insensitivity when dealing with others."

66She said your level of dysfunction causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupation and other areas of functioning.
67In addition, Ms Matthews was of the opinion that you met at least partially the diagnostic criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as defined by the then DSM-4. Ms Matthews did not or was not provided with sufficient specific information to explain the nature of the historic traumatic event or events that were the base of the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Rather, it was your generalised account of bullying and violence at the hands of your father or others at school or at home. Of note, it does not appear that Ms Matthews sought to or did discuss any of these matters with your mother.

68Judge Howie, in his sentencing remarks, noted,
"Your upbringing has been troubled with difficult relationships particularly with your father but also with your mother. They separated when you were 17 and a half. You enjoyed primary school but your experience of secondary school was marred by bullying and social isolation. You were expelled in Year 8. You have not been employed. While it appears you have continued to be socially isolated, I note that your mother gave evidence in the trials and has been present in court during the plea."

69To aid me in the many important matters relating to your mental state and what role, if any, your upbringing played in any impaired mental functioning and as to the topic of the risks of reoffending, which is connected to the topic of your prospects of rehabilitation, I ordered a report be prepared by Forensicare, pursuant to the provisions of the Sentencing Act. As was the case with Judge Howie, you again refused to co-operate and would not, for reasons you have expressed regularly during the trial, see any expert psychiatrist or psychologist from Forensicare. That is regrettable.
70You did engage your own psychologist, Mr Tim Watson-Munro. He saw you regularly through the latter half of 2016, first it seems to arm you with material to make another application for an adjournment of the trial and then subsequently to provide a report and evidence on your plea.
71On the topic of your upbringing, relying solely on your account,
Mr Watson-Munro wrote as follows in the report of 23 February 2017,
"It is clear from my history taking and the episodes described by Mr Davies that he was raised in a highly dysfunctional home. His daily experiences were characterised by physical and emotional abuse which were all the more impacting as a consequence of his Autism Spectrum Disorder. This had a dramatic effect upon his overall development, inclusive of his education."

72He goes on,
"By the age of 17, he was incarcerated at Pentridge on remand."

73It turns out you were in G Division, the hospital ward division of Pentridge on those days with those who were treated for mental health problems.
74In the course of Mr Watson-Munro's lengthy evidence on the plea, he was asked by the prosecution and by me about matters of your upbringing and family life. He said at transcript p.113 on 16 March 2017, that on your account you had a terrible upbringing. He then noted your mother seems to be very supportive. I then asked Mr Watson-Munro about your mother. I asked, "Did you talk to her?" He said, "I have not been allowed to." I then asked, "You haven't been allowed to speak to her?" Answer, "Well he's very keen that I don't speak to his mother. His mother has respected those wishes." Question, "Would you have tested his history relating to what life was like and her behaviour towards him?" The answer was, "If I had spoken to her, of course."
75He then reiterated in respect of this dysfunctional and torturous upbringing when he was referred to the evidence before Judge Dyett of the parents being very supportive, he says, "I can't really comment on what went on in the home beyond what he told me." "What he told you?" Question. "Yes, unless is speak to significant others in his life." Question, "Which you would normally do?" Answer, "I normally would."
76On this matter, you, Mr Davies, made further points that the prosecution's argument as to your motive was that you acted in revenge because of what you claimed to have suffered as a child. You say if the prosecution make that point, it can hardly be questioned that you did in fact have an abusive upbringing and thus this operates now as a mitigatory matter in the sentencing process. I understand your contention, but in my view it misses an important aspect. There is no question you have come to the firm view that you have suffered as a child. Further, that you believe that the family as an institution is inherently abusive. Thus, the society that maintains the importance of the institution of the family is culpable in abuse and a legitimate target for your attacks.
77But you stringently prevented any analysis or investigation of your claims which, by the time you spoke to Mr Watson-Munro, now amounted to daily physical and emotional abuse. So much of what you asserted to the psychologist about your upbringing has the air of an exaggerated hindsight justification. I am unable to accept on the evidence that I have the full extent of what you say as your experience as a child and adolescent. It is troubling that you prevented Mr Watson-Munroe from simply talking with your very supportive mother as he normally would do in these circumstances. But what I can accept and act on is that with your Asperger's or Autism Spectrum Disorder, things were not easy at school or always at home. The family relationships with others were, from your perspective with your autism not ideal.
78However, you probably did have a sense of being bullied but it seems to your parents, and most particularly your mother, has been unstinting in her support despite everything.
79I note your submissions on your prospects for rehabilitation in this plea emphasised that you have her support for accommodation and generally on your release. This fits with her evidence that I have heard on the bail application.
80What follows from all this, is that on a rigorous analysis, I am unable to accept that any Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that you may have can be found to be attributable to your early years. In my view, this conclusion fits with the considered evidence of Mr Watson-Munro given on the plea and with the reports of Ms Matthews. Any Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder appears to me to arise mostly, if not entirely, from your difficulties in custody. You with your Autism Spectrum Disorder find that touching and the risk of sexual assault in prison to be very stressful. This makes prison harder for you, a matter not in dispute on the plea.
81So my conclusions in respect of your upbringing on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and anxiety, is that limited, if any, mitigation flows from your upbringing. What mental health difficulties you have apart from your autism such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and anxiety are most likely reactions to your experience of incarceration as a person with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
82With your anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that arise from your prison experience, and your lifelong autism, a question that now must be considered is whether these attributes or conditions are relevant to my sentencing task and if so in what way.
83(Short adjournment.)
84Where I left the sentencing, Mr Davies was in discussing what role if any attributes or conditions such as the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and anxiety that arose from your prison experience and your lifelong autism impact on the sentencing task and if so in what way. Your submission was that these were factors of your life that are properly described as an impaired mental functioning, the term used by the Court of Appeal in Verdins and subsequently.
85Thus, so you argued, your moral culpability must be seen as less as you cannot reason or make proper judgments. Also, you are, so you argued, not a suitable vehicle for deterrence, which therefore needed to be moderated. You went on that you will do gaol harder and your condition may be made worse by gaol. In these submissions you relied on the report of Mr Watson-Munro. I have read and reread carefully Mr Watson-Munro's report. At the time, I listened to his evidence and have reread his lengthy oral evidence in transcript since.
86I do not intend to cover each and every aspect of his evidence. What stands out is that Mr Watson-Munro, having considered all the matters put to him by you, the prosecution and by me, in the end, was firmly of the view that none of the Verdins matters were engaged except the one being that gaol will be harder for you because of your impaired mental functioning than it would be if you did not have that impaired mental functioning.
87Mr Watson-Munro, in his cross-examination, was taken to the issue of planning and intent as revealed by your YouTube materials. Having considered these matters, Mr Watson-Munro said that your moral culpability was not less or lowered by reason of any impaired mental functioning. He went on to agree with the prosecutor in the following terms, "So from your expert opinion, the only limbs of Verdins that are engaged would be No.5?" Answer, "Correct." I then spoke saying, "We're all talking codes, no one else knows what we're talking about and sometimes I don't because I don't commit No.5 to memory." This exchange then explained, "No.5 from Verdins is what I put to Mr Watson-Munro is that he'll do prison harder because he has autism, is that right?" Answer, "That's correct."
88Mr Watson-Munro went on, "And I've given a lot of evidence about that." I responded to that by saying, "You have and I don't think the prosecutor will gainsay that, would you, Mr Prosecutor?" "No." Then it went on, "But as to the other limbs, his moral culpability, you concur with what the prosecutor says?" "Yes." Then it went on, "The third one is that deterrence isn't enlivened, amelioration of deterrence is not enlivened although there is some debate about that following what Judge Howie said?" His answer was, "Yes." "Then we turn to No.5, which is that prison," and he answered, "Yes, there's four as well with respect, Your Honour. That prison." "Hardship?" He answered, "Hardship and I've covered that I think in the evidence."
89Thus considering all the evidence and all the relevant authorities on the topic most of them subsequent to Judge Howie's sentence, I am firmly of the view that the only conclusion is none of the mitigatory matters articulated in Verdins are operative in your case save for the undisputed matter that gaol will be harder for you because of your impaired mental functioning.
90So to be clear, your moral culpability remains very high and is not, in my view, to be seen as diminished by reason of any aspect of your impaired mental functioning of anxiety, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or autism taken separately or in combination. You knew precisely what you were doing by committing each of the arsons and that it amounted to what you intended which is a deliberate attack on our community. It was a considered, deliberate campaign all planned and executed by you. There was, and is, no causal connection or link between your Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety or your autism and these five fires.
91Also, despite Judge Howie's conclusion that general deterrence ought be moderated, I am not of the view that with proper rigorous analysis of what amounts to your asserted impaired mental functioning and more importantly proper analysis of the more modern cases relating to this topic, that any moderation to general deterrence is warranted. The idea that the community would not be comfortable with you being used as an example to others is hard to conceive. The community would be well satisfied that someone like you is used as a suitable vehicle for the message of deterrence to be sent to others who may consider using arson as a tool of revenge or a weapon against the community.
92Specific deterrence is a concept that in my view with your intelligence, experience in the criminal justice system and your criminal history, it is a concept well understood by you. No aspect of your impaired mental functioning would cause me to consider for a moment that you are unable to understand that if you commit crimes, part of the punishment is to make you wake up to the reality that you should stop and if you don't punishments will likely be more severe.
93Thus, I am, as I have said, firmly of the view that no matters put by you on the basis of Verdins are made out save for the matter relating to hardship in prison. The standard of proof here is only on the balance of probabilities but in my view, propositions put by you on the evidence fall well below that standard. I said I am required to assess your moral culpability and I deferred that. I now make it clear that your moral culpability for all the crimes is very high.
94I turn now to your prospects for reform and your risks of reoffending. In his evidence, Mr Watson-Munro did not think you had a personality disorder or aspects of pathological narcissism. You refused to be examined by the expert psychiatrists or psychologists from Forensicare and that is unfortunate. It makes any claim that you have prospects of rehabilitation that much harder to assess. In the end, what the prosecution submitted is that your lack of
co-operation is revealing of your attitude to any systematic court or parole mandated treatment.
95By reason of all the evidence and the relevant factors, it is clear in my view that you are an ongoing danger to the community. The likelihood of your reoffending in the future is very high. On any realistic analysis, your prospects for reform and rehabilitation are very slim at best and most likely non-existent. It was put by Mr Watson-Munro that your reform needed long term dedicated and highly trained specialists to treat your problems. I have no confidence at all that you would co-operate with such a clinician at all or for the time required after release.
96While acknowledging you engaged with Mr Watson-Munro for some time, nothing in the evidence of Mr Watson-Munro reveals that you have any insight whatsoever into your criminality. In my view, the absence of insight is telling against your prospects for the future.
97There are some other factors, particular to the way this case unfolded that need to be added into the mix. A matter you have raised regularly and gave particular emphasis in your plea is the fact that you have been in custody since your arrest on 3 February 2011. It is no small matter. Given you are to be sentenced and thus all aspects of your trial in the County Court came to an end today on
10 April 2017, there has been a good deal of time that has passed and you have been in custody throughout.
98By reason of s.18 of the Sentencing Act, a certain proportion of the time can and will be declared as part of the sentence I will announce. The remainder of the time you spent in custody was pursuant to the sentence imposed by
Judge Howie in 2012. As a consequence of you standing trial before me for the arsons, you were not considered for parole when the minimum term imposed by Judge Howie had expired. Indeed, you served all of the head sentence imposed and adjusted by the Court of Appeal. I will take into account in your favour that you have served the whole of your head sentence.
99As to the consideration of delay, beyond matters relating to you doing the whole of Judge Howie's head sentence, what is to be noted is that the verdicts delivered on 25 November 2016, followed 61 days of trial from the empanelment of the jury which occurred on 15 August 2016. Prior to the empanelment, there were 70 days of pre-trial hearings from 4 April 2016. Following your arrest on 3 February 2011, you were committed by a magistrate to this court in July 2013. Your case then came before me to manage and here in March 2014, the trial date of 2 June had been fixed. That trial date was vacated on 12 May 2014.
100A new trial dated 1 September 2014 was also vacated by an order on 31 July 2014. The next new trial date of 25 May 2015 was also vacated. The next trial date of 4 April 2016 was held and the pre-trial and the trial before the jury proceeded over the next near on eight months as I have said from 4 April to 25 November 2016. Throughout that whole time, you, Mr Davies, represented yourself save for a short period prior to the empanelment of the jury and in recent times as the plea and sentencing dates approached. In the period that I have managed this matter, you, Mr Davies, have made three interlocutory appeals to the Court of Appeal, the first two having the consequence of causing the then upcoming trial dates to be vacated.
101The length of the trial, the pre-trial arguments and the many hearings from March 2014 onwards exposed the vulnerability of our system of justice. These charges, the evidence and the legal issues were not unduly complicated despite the misguided view you, Mr Davies, took of the matter. The whole proceeding could and ought to have occupied a month to six weeks or so of court time in 2014. The fact that in 2017 I am finally resolving these matters is most regrettable. As the Court of Appeal said in the first interlocutory appeal in 2015 by way of post script, the following telling matters,
"This matter has proceeded without getting to trial for a very long time. Transcript shows the applicant to be, in our opinion, an intelligent and mentally agile man. Accepting as some cause for complaint about disclosure issues, his ability to string the matter out would do credit to the lawyers in Jarndyce v Jarndyce. The trial is fixed for hearing as we have earlier noted in May this year, barring some unexpected and compelling development that is when it should be held."

102Of course it was not held and not held until April 2016.
103As to the overall consideration of delay, I say the following, while delay can be a matter that mitigates notwithstanding the cause of the delay, the weight to be attributed to any delay will be will depend on all the circumstances of the delay. In my view, little mitigatory weight ought be given as a consequence that the matter took the time that it has taken. It could have and it ought to have been done more efficiently and quicker and in 2014, but the way you decided to proceed has meant great delays.
104As noted, I will take into account the time you have spent in prison by declaration and otherwise as to periods that cannot be declared. However, further mitigatory weight because the matter has been hanging over your head or delayed will be minimal.
105I make it clear that you are not punished for pleading not guilty and running a trial. Nor that you represented yourself. Nor because there were testy exchanges between you and me from time to time. As part of the process, after rulings were made and the indictment severed, you did make offers to plead guilty to some charges but with strict and plainly unacceptable conditions to the prosecution. In all the circumstances, little mitigatory weight will attach to your offers or any sense of you taking responsibility. I do not ignore the matter, but it is not a matter of much value given the jury verdicts.
106In my view, there is a total absence of remorse. This does not add to your sentence, but it is nonetheless a factor of importance. Your lack of remorse casts negative light on your prospects of reform. The absence of remorse and insight are important matters in establishing that you are an ongoing high risk to reoffend.
107I have kept well in mind that these offences of arson have a maximum term fixed by parliament of 15 years' imprisonment, which reflects how seriously our parliament and community view this dangerous crime. As required, I have had regard to current sentencing practices for arson. I have considered the cases referred to me by the parties and the tables prepared by the Sentencing Advisory Council. Other sentences are not precedence and in some instances such as this, the circumstances differ in important ways so that other cases and statistics are not especially helpful. I have kept in mind the need for consistency in sentencing and the concept that other cases provide a broad yardstick, but in the end, each case and each sentence is to be determined on its own facts and circumstances. Here the facts and circumstances are particularly unique.

108I have endeavoured to make clear that the important sentencing purposes are the primary one of protection of the community, denunciation of your terrible crimes, deterrence particular to your but also generally. Your rehabilitation must, in all the circumstances, yield to these other sentencing purposes. The gravity of your offending, the impact on the victims and generally the fear this sort of offending engenders, your bad history and your very poor prospects together with the limited mitigatory matters that can be raised lead to the inevitable conclusion that lengthy sentences must be imposed.
109When this conclusion is coupled with the requirement that the sentences be served cumulative unless otherwise directed, what emerges is a stern and lengthy sentence.
110With respect to orders for cumulation, I repeat I cannot ignore that these were separate crimes, nor that parliament intended that cumulation is to be ordered unless otherwise directed. However, I need to also look at this offending as a series of crimes committed in a short period of time. Thus considering all matters, I have determined there will be some concurrency and some cumulation in the sentences imposed.
111Coming to what I see as a just and appropriate sentence and the proper orders for cumulation, I have to then consider, and I have considered most anxiously, whether the proportionate sentence that I have come to is sufficient to ensure protection of the community or whether I must impose a longer sentence than a proportionate one in light of the objective circumstances and the gravity of the offending.
112The statute speaks of objective circumstances. Here, those objective matters are very concerning. But the matters of real concern are also very much factors personal or subjective to you.
113I am by reason of all the matters deeply concerned about the risks you pose to the community. However, I am not persuaded to the high standard of beyond reasonable doubt by the available evidence that you will remain such a danger at the expiration of the proportionate sentence that I need to add to the length of your incarceration by taking the rare step of imposing a disproportionate sentence. I have, in coming to this conclusion, applied the principles outlined in the cases of Prowse, Tutchell, Connell and others referred to by the parties.
114I have reconsidered all the matters in coming to this conclusion, that is what you did and your concerning motivations, your past crimes and your bleak prospects. In my view, the requirement of cumulation permits me to impose a proportionate sentence that properly meets the primary consideration of protection of our community from you.
115I have considered the question of a potential period of parole. I sentence you on the basis that you may have to do every day of the head sentence. Whether you do or not is for others, not me. In fixing the minimum non-parole period, I do so on the basis that the term so what I consider justice requires as the minimum period of incarceration. As the authorities make clear, there are no fixed formulas and when a sentence is a long one, the broad range of two thirds or three quarters fall away. Your past criminality, ongoing lack of insight, your lack of co-operation and your poor prospects for reform make the fixing of minimum non-parole period above those sorts of percentages well justified in this case and the authorities make it clear that I can take that course.
116Please stand, Mr Davies. Doing the best I can, I impose the following sentences. I will refer to the charges as one, two, three, four and five, but they do formally relate to five, six, seven and eight. Just for clarity, that is the way I am doing it.
117Charge 1, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for three years. Charge 2, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for two years and six months. On Charge 3, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year and six months. On Charge 4, you are sentenced to seven years and six months. On Charge 5, you are sentenced to seven years and nine months.
118I order that 15 months of Charge 1, 12 months of Charge 2, six months of Charge 3 and four years of Charge 4 be cumulative upon each other and upon the sentence that I imposed on Charge 5. On my calculations, that is a total effective sentence of 14 years and six months and a fix a minimum non-parole period of 12 years and three months. I declare that you have served 1,123 days on remand in respect of the sentence that I have just imposed. That figure having been reckoned, I will declare that that is part of the sentence that I have just imposed and I will ensure that that declaration is entered into the records of the court so that the prison authorities are left in no doubt that you have served 1,123 days of the sentence I have just imposed.
119Pursuant to the provisions of the Sentencing Act in respect of the charges that I have imposed sentences for, sentences of imprisonment, I declare that you are serious arson offender and I will ensure that this declaration is entered into the records of the court.
120Is the maths correct, Mr Prosecutor?
121MR PROSECUTOR: Just excuse me a moment.
122HIS HONOUR: Of course.
123OFFENDER: Your Honour, can I just say that it seems to me the figure is way off. I'd just like to clarify, the dates ‑ ‑ ‑
124HIS HONOUR: It is just being added up now. Just take a seat.
125MR PROSECUTOR: Your Honour said 15 months on Charge 1, 12 months on Charge 2, six months on Charge 4 and four months on Charge 4 - sorry.
126HIS HONOUR: Four years.
127MR PROSECUTOR: Four years, which is a total of six years nine months.
128HIS HONOUR: Yes.
129MR PROSECUTOR: And that's to be added to seven years nine months. Yes, it is.
130HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
131MR PROSECUTOR: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. There is a forfeiture order and a disposal order which I will take this opportunity to have served on Mr Davies. We can deal with this at some stage in the future.
132HIS HONOUR: They will be served on Mr Davies.
133MR PROSECUTOR: It does not need to be done today.
134HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
135MR PROSECUTOR: But I will serve those and we can ‑ ‑ ‑
136HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Davies, you will receive these documents, you will receive transcript or digital of the sentence I have just imposed. You will receive the charge and other documents that have now been settled and that brings the matter in the County Court to an end. I take the opportunity to thank all that have helped me, Mr Prosecutor most particularly, also Madam Prosecutor, those at the Office of Corrections, those at Victorian Government Solicitor, all the lawyers involved including those that for a time endeavoured to help Mr Davies.
137Despite this being a difficult trial, it was a fair one and all those involved in particular in this case, the informant, the community is in their debt.
138MR PROSECUTOR: If Your Honour please.
139HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Davies can be removed.
140OFFENDER: Ah Your Honour, I just want to say ‑ ‑ ‑
141HIS HONOUR: Mr Davies, the matter is concluded. What do you wish to add?
142OFFENDER: I've just been advised, I just noticed that the um e-crime and the jury are in court and I've been advised ‑ ‑ ‑
143HIS HONOUR: Yes, do not comment on that. They are perfectly entitled to be here.
144OFFENDER: That - that's true but my ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
145HIS HONOUR: So do not make things worse by raising it yet again when I have told you not to.
146(Prisoner removed.)
147Again, I reiterate the thanks of the court to those that have worked tirelessly in respect of perhaps the most difficult case that has occurred in these courts for some time.
148MR PROSECUTOR: Thank you, Your Honour.
149HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

‑ ‑ ‑