Director of Public Prosecutions v Day (a pseudonym)
[2021] VCC 1020
•23 July 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| DARREN DAY (a pseudonym) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE D SEXTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING: | 15 June 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 23 July 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Day (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1020 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sexual penetration of a stepchild; standard sentencing; serious sexual offender provisions
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004
Cases Cited:Clarkson v R (2011) 32 VR 361; Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Walsh (A Pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 172; R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; McPhersonv R [2021] VSCA 53; Brown v R (2020) 62 VR 491; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Brown v R (2019) 59 VR 462; Gordon v R [2013] VSCA 343
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 8 years’ and 9 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr B. Sonnet | Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Offender | Mr P. Stefanovic (15 June 2021) Mr P. Byrne (23 July 2021) | Ben von Einem & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Darren Day,[1] you have pleaded guilty to three charges of sexual penetration of a stepchild, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment. This is a category 1 offence. Pursuant to the Sentencing Act 1991, a sentence of imprisonment is mandatory.
[1] A pseudonym – in order to prevent possible identification of the victim in this matter, pseudonyms of relevant individuals have been used.
Circumstances of Offending
2
The details of your offending were set out in the Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 4 June 2021 (Exhibit 1). At your plea hearing on
15 June 2021, your counsel confirmed that this document is accepted by you as the factual basis for the offending for which you will be sentenced.
3Your offending can be briefly summarised. At the time of the offending, you were aged 49 to 50 years of age. Your victim in this matter, Maya Unthank,[2] was aged 15 to 16 years of age at the time of the offending. She is your stepchild. At the time of the offending, she was living with you, her mother and younger sister at an address in Bell Park.
[2] A pseudonym.
4You previously met the victim’s mother on a dating application. You married over 10 years ago and shortly afterwards, Ms Unthank’s mother migrated to Australia. The victim followed three months later, and you all lived together as a family in Corio. In 2013, you and Ms Unthank’s mother subsequently had a daughter.
5In around 2016 when your victim was aged 14, the family moved to the premises in Bell Park. After the move, Ms Unthank’s mother and you slept in different bedrooms, and in 2018 Ms Unthank’s mother began seeing another male and sleeping at his house. You tolerated this new relationship on the condition that Ms Unthank’s mother did not separate from you.
6At around the time that you and your family moved to the premises at Bell Park, a lock was placed on Ms Unthank’s bedroom door after her mother spoke to you about putting a lock on her bedroom door, apparently consistent with her culture. Ms Unthank’s mother also impressed upon Ms Unthank the importance of attending to her education and apparently threatened Ms Unthank that she would be sent back to her country of origin if she had a boyfriend during her education years.
7On 16 August 2019, Ms Unthank became upset at school after receiving explicit text messages from you, including, 'Can you please just suck me when mums with Mick?’[3] At this time, Ms Unthank was denying anything sexual had happened between you and her but was frightened to go home due to her mother's response. The matter was reported to police that day, and Ms Unthank participated in a VARE interview. In her VARE, Ms Unthank describes sexual acts between herself and you on three different occasions.
[3] A pseudonym.
8Incident 1 – Ms Unthank stated that she entered your bedroom and performed oral sex on you by inserting your penis into her mouth. She recalls that this occurred during the summer holidays in January 2018, at which time she was 15 years old. Your conduct in this regard forms the basis of Charge 1 on the indictment.
9Incident 2 – Ms Unthank stated that she entered your bedroom and performed oral sex on you by inserting your penis into her mouth. She recalls that this occurred on the last weekend of the winter school holidays in 2019, that being the weekend of 13 to 14 July 2019, at which time she was 16 years old. Your conduct in this regard forms the basis of Charge 2 on the indictment.
10Incident 3 – Ms Unthank stated that she entered your bedroom and performed oral sex on you by inserting your penis into her mouth. She recalls that this occurred sometime between incident 2 and the weekend preceding the report being made to police, at which time she was 16 years of age. Your conduct in this regard forms the basis of Charge 3 on the indictment.
11Ms Unthank indicated in her VARE that at that time, she was scared that her mother would find out what had been occurring. She stated that these incidents had occurred as a result of her sleepwalking into your bedroom at night and engaging in these sexual acts. She stated that you told her the following day about what had taken place and stated that she only knew what she had done from you telling her about the incidents. She also indicated that a lock was placed on her bedroom door in between the first and second incidents.
12At the time of making her complaint, Ms Unthank provided to police a number of explicit text messages sent to her on 16 August 2019 by you. A summary of those messages is set out in detail at pages five to seven of the Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea. I will not now describe the details of those text messages, save to make the comment that they reveal a significant sexual interest on your part in your young stepdaughter.
13On 18 August 2019, two days after Ms Unthank participated in her VARE interview with police, you spoke with the gentleman who had been seeing your wife. You stated that Ms Unthank was a sleepwalker and that you would wake up in the night to discover her performing oral sex on you. You stated that you put a lock on her bedroom door to stop this behaviour.
14On 16 August 2019, you were interviewed at Geelong Police Station. You informed police, amongst other things, that Ms Unthank performed the sexual acts whilst she was sleepwalking and at a time when you were asleep in bed. You indicated that you had placed a lock on Ms Unthank’s bedroom door in an effort to prevent her coming into your bedroom during the night and you stated that you were not a willing participant in the sexual acts, essentially blaming Ms Unthank for the performance of the sexual acts and believing that you were an innocent party.
15You expressed similar sentiments to DHHS in a subsequent interview on 13 September 2019.
Impact on Victim
16No Victim Impact Statement was provided in this matter. However, consistent with the principles articulated in Clarkson v R,[4] given the nature of the offending and the age of your victim, the law presumes harm in circumstances where a child engages in sexual acts with an adult, irrespective of any willingness on the part of the child.
[4](2011) 32 VR 361.
Nature and Seriousness of Your Offending
17For many years, courts have emphasised the seriousness of this type of incestuous offending and the need to impose severe sentences to reflect the offence, gravity and harm committed. Indeed, as stated in Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Walsh (A Pseudonym):[5]
'Incest involving a child is an appalling crime. It involves a breach of trust of the most fundamental kind, and an inexplicable abdication of parental responsibility. Just as seriously, it involves a cynical exploitation by the parent of the opportunity for sexual contact which being in that position of trust presents.'
[5][2018] VSCA 172 at [1].
18Whilst you are not the biological father of Ms Unthank, you assumed parental responsibility for her upon her migration to Australia as a young child, some years prior to the offending. You are her stepfather. As her parent, you had a duty to protect her and keep her safe. Instead, on multiple occasions you engaged in serious sexual offending with your young stepdaughter, and your conduct in these circumstances represents a most serious breach of trust. Ms Unthank was aged 15 to 16 at the time of the offending; clearly, therefore, a young and vulnerable child. Your offending against your stepdaughter was not isolated. You offended against her in January 2018, and then again on two occasions some 18 months later, in July 2019. Notwithstanding the references by both you and your stepdaughter in your respective accounts of other sexual activity, consistent with the manner in which this case resolved to a plea of guilty, and consistent with the principles articulated in R v De Simoni,[6] you are not to be sentenced for other such activity.
[6](1981) 147 CLR 383.
19In analysing the circumstances of your offending, those circumstances remain somewhat opaque, given your stepdaughter's account in her VARE of sleepwalking at the time of the conduct. Whilst you told police and others that your stepdaughter was sleepwalking, at your plea hearing on 15 June 2021, your counsel, on your behalf, expressly disavowed any reliance on this sleepwalking claim with regards to the circumstances surrounding the offending. Whatever the case, your offending involved penetrative sexual activity with your young stepdaughter, in her home, in your bed, on multiple occasions. I accept that in this case there is an absence of other aggravating factors sometimes seen in such cases. There is no evidence of any violence beyond that inherent in this type of offending; no evidence of humiliation or degradation, no evidence of any preparatory or grooming-type conduct on your part, no evidence of any ejaculation accompanying the conduct, and no evidence of any subsequent entreaties on your part to facilitate further offending, or prevent disclosure of the offending.
20In all the circumstances and bearing in mind the matters to which I have just referred, I agree with the prosecution that each charge represents a serious example of the offence of sexual penetration of a stepchild, and collectively, your offending represents a serious example of this crime. However, for the reasons I have just articulated, I am unable to conclude that your offending represents a midrange example of this crime, having regard to the objective factors, noting the need for caution with regard to this intangible concept.[7] With that caveat, in my view, the offending objectively sits somewhat below a midrange example of the crime of sexual penetration of a stepchild.
[7]McPhersonv R [2021] VSCA 53 at [31].
Your Level of Responsibility for the Offending
21At your plea hearing on 15 June 2021, consistent with earlier written defence sentencing submissions dated 4 June 2021 (Exhibit A), your counsel conceded that, notwithstanding the fact that you have been diagnosed by various experts with an unspecified personality disorder, there was no causative link between that disorder and your offending which would warrant a reduction in your moral culpability pursuant to the Verdins'[8] mental impairment principles. Furthermore, your counsel noted that pursuant to recent Court of Appeal authority,[9] it is by no means clear as to the extent to which a personality disorder can trigger Verdins' considerations in any given case.
[8] R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269.
[9]Brown v R (2020) 62 VR 491.
22Accordingly, in my view your level of culpability for your offending is high.
Personal Circumstances
23You are currently 52 years of age. You are the second oldest of five, with two brothers and two sisters. You apparently have a highly conflictual relationship with the majority of your siblings, maintaining contact with only one sister. Your parents separated when you were 15, and your siblings and you lived with your mother post separation. Your father was an alcoholic with a history of domestic violence, in which both you and your mother were the primary targets. You have not seen your father for some 13 years.
24You have been educated to partway through Year 8, apparently suffering constant bullying throughout primary school. Post-education, you worked at three different petrol stations over a period of three and a half years, before working as an industrial cleaner for eight years. You have since been employed as a truck driver for two companies, with this employment ceasing some months before your remand in custody for this matter.
25Prior to your marriage to the mother of your victim, you had previously been married to another woman, resulting in two children from that union. You have no contact with those children or your ex-wife.
26In terms of your health, you were born with a genetic disorder, Factor V Leiden, a condition which contributes to a tendency to develop abnormal blood clots. This condition appears to have been detected later in your life, apparently increasing the chance of other conditions developing, such as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. You have reported using amphetamines in the form of 'speed' from adolescence, although you have denied more recent amphetamine or methamphetamine use. You have also reported intermittent heroin use from the age of 14, though you have denied using this substance since the age of 35. You have also reported previous binge drinking of alcohol and use of cannabis.
27In the lead up to your remand in custody at your plea hearing on 15 June 2021, you were apparently without stable accommodation and had been effectively sleeping in your vehicle.
28It is to your credit that, at the age of 52, you have just one prior conviction dating from 1992, where you received a without conviction fine for possession of cannabis. As at the date of your plea hearing, you had been offence free for 29 years. This is a matter standing to your credit.
29
For the purposes of your plea hearing, you were assessed by a psychologist, Simon Candlish, and his findings were set out in his report dated
16 September 2020 (Exhibit C). Mr Candlish interviewed you on
1 September 2020. According to Mr Candlish, you presented with some current symptoms of depression, however, it was difficult to determine the extent of your symptoms and whether you would meet the criteria for Major Depressive Disorder or Persistent Depressive Disorder. You were also considered to display moderate impairment in your personality functioning, displaying an unstable sense of yourself, detachment, and impaired empathy. According to Mr Candlish:
'A prominent aspect of his personality structure includes suspiciousness and mistrust as well as paranoia. Provisionally, he appears to meet the criteria for Unspecified Personality Disorder … .'[10]
[10]Report of Simon Candlish dated 16 September 2020, paragraph 98.
30Mr Candlish recommended a neuropsychological assessment as you appeared to present with symptoms suggestive of some cognitive issues.
31
You were subsequently assessed by neuropsychologist, Dr Linda Borg, on
5 March 2021 and Dr Borg's findings were contained in her report dated
16 March 2021 (Exhibit D).
32According to Dr Borg, you presented with cognitive deficits, primarily within the domain of attention and aspects of executive function, but according to Dr Borg there was insufficient evidence to support a diagnosis of a learning disability. Your deficits are considered to be primarily attributable to elevated levels of anxiety and stress, with additional contributions from maladaptive personality elements. A diagnosis of an unspecified personality disorder was indicated, whereby narcissistic and antisocial elements are considered most prominent. According to Dr Borg, from a cognitive perspective, you do not demonstrate evidence of impairment to impulse control behaviour or regulation and reasoning skills, and there are no appreciable cognitive contributors to your offending behaviour.
Sentencing Factors
33The Sentencing Act 1991 requires me to have regard to various factors when formulating an appropriate sentence in your case. I have already referred to the maximum penalty for the crime of sexual penetration of a stepchild, the nature and seriousness of your offending and impact on your victim, your level of responsibility for the offending and your previous character. I turn now to other factors.
34I am satisfied, in all the circumstances, that you entered your plea of guilty early in proceedings, warranting a significant sentencing discount. Following your police interview on 16 August 2019, you were charged on 19 May 2020, and you entered your pleas of guilty through the straight hand-up brief procedure at a Committal Mention on 13 November 2020. Particularly, given the nature of the allegations and your victim's accounts to police that she was sleepwalking at the relevant time, and therefore had no awareness of the offending, your plea of guilty is of particular utilitarian benefit. Neither your victim, nor any other witnesses, were cross-examined and the community has been spared the costs and delays associated with contested proceedings. Particularly, given the current COVID-19 pandemic and the unprecedented challenges to the administration of criminal justice in this State, the utilitarian benefit of your plea of guilty is very significant. It is greater than it would be without the COVID-19 pandemic, and accordingly an ‘actual and palpable amelioration of sentence’ is warranted, in order to encourage pleas of guilty.[11]
[11] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 at [35].
35I turn now to the issue of remorse. According to your counsel, whilst problematic, given your early plea of guilty, your text messages and your record of interview, where it was said that you indicated a desire to save further trauma to your victim, 'there is a place for remorse in the sentencing synthesis'.[12] In all the circumstances, I agree with the prosecution that, notwithstanding your early plea of guilty, you have demonstrated only limited remorse for your offending, such that remorse does not constitute a significant mitigatory factor in the sentencing exercise.
[12]Written Submissions for the Defence on the Plea dated 4 June 2021, paragraph 30.
36
Your account to police in your interview is highly problematic. You essentially provided an account which sought to absolve yourself of any criminal responsibility for the offending for which you have now pleaded guilty. Up until your plea hearing on 15 June 2021, you apparently maintained the position that your victim was sleepwalking and came into your bed and engaged in the sexual activity. At your plea hearing, you abandoned this claim. You similarly sought to deflect responsibility for your offending during your assessment with psychologist,
Simon Candlish, where you essentially indicated that you woke up to your victim engaging in the sexual activity with you. You denied any sexual feelings for your victim, in contrast to the text messages contained in the Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea. When Mr Candlish asked you if you thought that your stepdaughter had been affected by the sexual abuse, you apparently reported that 'she never seemed bothered'.[13] According to Mr Candlish, your 'account appeared generally dishonest and distorted and appeared, at times, intentionally distorted to avoid having to acknowledge that he committed sexual offences against his stepdaughter'.[14] The subsequent neuropsychological report from Dr Borg was equally problematic on the issue of remorse. According to Dr Borg, you engaged in continued victim blaming and asserted you were the victim.[15] Dr Borg provided:
'Mr Day typically responded in an ego-centric manner and appeared to regard the impact of his behaviour on the victim as a secondary consideration as opposed to being of primary significance. Furthermore, his remarks revealed a lack of empathic concern as well as little capacity for perspective taking, meaning that he exhibited little expression of remorse'.[16]
[13]Report of Simon Candlish dated 16 September 2020, paragraph 69.
[14]Report of Simon Candlish dated 16 September 2020, paragraph 72.
[15]Report of Dr Linda Borg dated 16 March 2021, paragraph 16.
[16]Report of Dr Linda Borg dated 16 March 2021, paragraph 20.
37Dr Borg concluded:
'In light of underlying narcissistic and antisocial personality traits, his remarks revealed a lack of empathic concern as well as little capacity for perspective taking despite his cognitive capabilities, meaning that his expression of remorse was negligible.'[17]
[17]Report of Dr Linda Borg dated 16 March 2021, paragraph 38 (xii).
38I accept that, to some degree, these highly problematic references in the psychological material can be at least partially explained by 'something of bravado' as referred to by your counsel in oral submissions, in the context of your personality disorder. Nevertheless, your lack of insight and empathy with regards to your offending highlights the need for any sentence to reflect the sentencing purposes of specific deterrence and community protection and does not bode particularly well with regards to your prospects of rehabilitation.
39With regards to your physical health, I accept that you have considerable physical ailments which will no doubt make your time in custody more arduous. As confirmed in the Patient Health Summary from the Belmont Bulkbilling Clinic dated 10 June 2021 (Exhibit B), you have a medical history of Factor 5 Leiden, Protein C deficiency, deep vein thrombosis and leg ulcerations. I was informed at your plea hearing, and accept, that you suffer with large leg ulcerations on both legs, from knee to ankle, requiring constant daily attention in the form of bandages, and that as at the date of your plea hearing there was some evidence of gangrene. Understandably, you have concerns with regard to the impacts of any physical contact within the custodial environment upon your leg ulcerations. Together with the depressive symptomology referred to by psychologist, Simon Candlish, I accept that the circumstances in which you will serve a sentence of imprisonment will be more burdensome by virtue of your health conditions, such that a mitigatory allowance is warranted with regards to sentencing.
40I also accept that, at least for the foreseeable future, your circumstances of imprisonment will be particularly burdensome, given the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. As recent events have highlighted, the scourge of COVID-19 continues to have significant adverse consequences for the custodial environment, with restricted freedoms, restricted access to therapeutic programs and other activities, and restricted access to prisoner visits. A further sentencing allowance is therefore warranted.
41I turn now to the issue of your prospects of rehabilitation. I have already referred to this in the context of your relative lack of criminal history, and your insight and remorse issues. I accept that at the age of 52, with a relative lack of criminal history, and given your early plea of guilty, these matters stand to your credit with regards to your prospects of rehabilitation. However, as highlighted through your insight and remorse issues, this issue is not straightforward. Returning to the report of Simon Candlish, he conducted an assessment with regards to your risk of sexual re-offending, using recognised static and dynamic risk assessment tools. Mr Candlish concludes that you are considered to fall into the moderate-low risk category for sexual recidivism in the absence of any interventions designed to increase your risk manageability.[18] Importantly, although Mr Candlish refers to your denial of responsibility for the offending, 'denial of offending does not necessarily serve to increase risk. Treatment participants who deny their offences are still able to benefit from exploring their psychosocial histories, developing their self-awareness, and making attitudinal and behavioural changes and yet may continue to deny their offences.'[19] Mr Candlish concludes by making a number of intervention recommendations, which include consideration of antidepressant medication and psychological intervention. Neuropsychologist, Dr Linda Borg, also expressed opinions with regards to your rehabilitation prospects. According to Dr Borg, you demonstrate the necessary cognitive repertoire to benefit from formal psychological intervention; however, your entrenched belief systems will be difficult to alter and will require specialist intervention.
'Addressing the personality elements which contribute to Mr Day’s behaviour is considered imperative to improving rehabilitation prospects. Without this, it is unlikely that his self-awareness and experience of empathy or regard for others would appreciably improve.'[20]
[18]Report of Simon Candlish dated 16 September 2020, paragraph 151.
[19]Report of Simon Candlish dated 16 September 2020, paragraph 160.
[20]Report of Dr Linda Borg dated 16 March 2021, paragraph 38 (x).
42In all the circumstances, I regard your prospects of rehabilitation as being somewhat guarded, and heavily dependent upon appropriate psychological intervention.
Standard Sentencing
43Charges 2 and 3 are subject to the standard sentence offence regime contained in the Sentencing Act 1991. The standard sentence for the offence of sexual penetration of a stepchild is 10 years' imprisonment. This is the sentence for an offence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle of the range of seriousness.[21] In sentencing an offender for a standard sentencing offence, a court must take the standard sentence into account as one of the factors relevant to sentencing.[22] In considering the impact of standard sentencing on your case, I have considered the decision of Brown v R.[23] This requirement to take into account the standard sentence as one of the factors in sentencing is to be treated as a legislative guidepost, having the same function as the maximum penalty. It does not allow the standard sentence to be viewed as a starting point. It does not affect the established instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing, it does not require or permit two-stage sentencing and does not otherwise affect the matters which I may, or must, take into account in sentencing. Accordingly, I have taken the standard sentence for the offence of sexual penetration of a stepchild into account as one of the factors to consider in my instinctive synthesis of all of the relevant factors. My consideration of the standard sentence for this offence as one of these factors is reflected in the sentence I will impose.
[21]Sentencing Act 1991 s5A(1)(b).
[22]Sentencing Act 1991 s5B(2)(a).
[23](2019) 59 VR 462.
44Pursuant to s5A(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act 1991, in relation to a standard sentence offence, I can only pay regard to sentences previously imposed, where sexual penetration of a stepchild was the subject of the Standard Sentence Scheme. The prosecution in this case provided a table of cases outlining details of relevant sentences imposed for this offence since the Standard Sentencing Regime commenced operation. I have carefully considered each of these decisions referred to in the table, noting that each case is necessarily fact specific.
45The sentences I will impose with respect to Charges 2 and 3 on the indictment are lower than the standard sentence. Having identified and considered the relevant factors in assessing the sentence, including the standard sentence, the objective seriousness of the offending and matters available in mitigation, these are the sentences I have determined to be appropriate.
Sentencing Principles and Purposes
46You fall to be sentenced as a 'serious sexual offender' on Charge 3 only. On that charge, s6D of the Sentencing Act 1991 elevates protection of the community as the principal purpose of sentencing. I note in this case that the prosecution did not seek a disproportionate sentence on this charge. Pursuant to s6E of the Sentencing Act 1991, there is a presumption of cumulation with regards to sentencing regarding serious offender offences. The prosecution submitted that cumulation was required in respect of all charges on the indictment. I agree with the prosecution that cumulation is required, given the discrete offences captured by each charge on the indictment, subject, as always, to the overarching principle of totality and being cognisant of the principles articulated in Gordon v R.[24]
[24][2013] VSCA 343.
47Given the nature of your offending and the various sentencing factors and other matters to which I have referred, the sentencing purposes of general deterrence, specific deterrence, protection of the community, and denunciation, are all highly relevant sentencing purposes in this case. The community must know that engaging in such serious sexual offending will be met with stern punishment.
Sentence to be Imposed
48On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to six years' and three months' imprisonment.
49On Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to six years' and six months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
50On Charge 3, you are convicted and sentenced to six years' and six months' imprisonment.
51I direct that 12 months on Charge 1, and 15 months on Charge 3, be served cumulatively upon each other, and upon the base sentence imposed on Charge 2,
making a total effective sentence of eight years' and nine months' imprisonment.
52Pursuant to s11A(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, with regards to Charges 2 and 3 on the indictment, I must fix a non-parole period of at least 60 per cent of the head sentence, unless I consider that it is in the interests of justice not to do so. I am not satisfied in this case that it is in the interest of justice to impose a non-parole period of less than 60 per cent of the head sentence. Therefore, I order that you serve a period of six years' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
53Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare a period of 38 days pre-sentence detention, and I order that this period be deducted administratively from your sentence.
54In relation to Charge 3, pursuant to s6E(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you are sentenced as a serious sexual offender, and I order that this fact be entered into the records of the Court.
55Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that, had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty after trial, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of twelve years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine years.
56Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, registration is mandatory in relation to these offences and the reporting period is for life. I make those orders accordingly.
- - -
0
9
0