Director of Public Prosecutions v Deftereos and Anor (Sentence)

[2019] VCC 707

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
  CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-18-00411
CR-18-00412

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

V

ROSS DEFTEREOS
CLEMENT BABO

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 April 2019 & 9 May 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 May 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Deftereos & Anor (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 707

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW – sentence

Catchwords:  Pleas of guilty to aggravated home invasion, theft and possession of a drug of dependence - home invasion in company - joint criminal enterprise - roles of co-accused in offending - youthful offenders - minimum non-parole period required by legislation - whether special reasons exist

Legislation Cited:  Sentencing Act1991; Confiscation Act1997
Cases Cited:   Sikoulabout v the Queen [2018] VSCA 268

Sentence:Deftereos: 4 years, 8 months’ imprisonment (NPP 3 years) 

Babo: 2 years, 10 months’ imprisonment (NPP 18 months)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms S. Pillai	Mr J. Cain, Solicitor, OPP
For Accused Deftereos For Accused Babo	Mr M. Sturges Ms M. Walker	Chester Metcalfe Melinda Walker

HER HONOUR: 

1Ross Deftereos and Clement Babo, you have each pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated home invasion, theft and possession of a drug of dependence, namely cannabis. In addition, you Clement Babo have pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods and to the summary offences of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, contravening a conduct condition of bail and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime.

2The aggravated home invasion was committed on 18 July 2017 by a group of five co-offenders, being the two of you and co-accused, Adum Atem, Angelo Deng and Jordan Okello. Adum Atem and Angelo Deng were 19 at the time of the offending; Jordan Okello was 18 years of age. Mr Deftereos, you were born in September 1995 and were 21 years old at the time of the offending. Mr Babo, you were born in November 1997 and were 19 years old at the time of the offending. Although you were both adults, you were youthful offenders.

3The maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated home invasion is 25 years’ imprisonment. The offence of theft carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and possession of a drug of dependence carries a maximum penalty of five years. I have had regard to these maximum penalties in sentencing you.

Circumstances of the offending

4I turn to the circumstances of the offending. I heard a summary of the offending which was tendered as Exhibit A in the plea proceedings.

5On the evening of 18 July 2017, you Mr Deftereos drove a car to the Hughes’ home in Coburg, with Mr Babo in the front passenger seat of the car and the three co-accused in the back. Fiona Hughes lives at home with her 18-year-old son, Marcello Narrias-Hughes, although he was not present at the time. At 8.50pm, Ms Hughes was alone, watching TV in the lounge room. The two of you remained in the car while the three co-accused left the car and went to the house. One co-accused was armed with a metallic red baseball bat. Ms Hughes heard knocking on her front door and went to look through the front window. She saw two males standing at her front door. She described them as being African or Sudanese in appearance. Ms Hughes asked what they wanted. They said they were there for her son because “he did something to us”. One of the males then used the baseball bat to smash the front window and reached through the smashed window to unlock the front door. Ms Hughes says that four males, including the three co-accused, then “barged” into the house. One was wearing a mask.

6Once inside, two of the men ran straight upstairs. Ms Hughes says those two had earlier smashed windows at the back of her house. One of the males approached Ms Hughes brandishing the baseball bat, took her mobile phone and told her to “shut up” and not to call the police. This is the conduct that constitutes the aggravated home invasion. Although the two of you remained in the car, you have pleaded guilty to the offence on the basis that each of you were participating with the co-accused in a joint criminal enterprise.

7Mr Babo, you were on bail at the time and have pleaded guilty to the aggravated home invasion whilst on bail, an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to 30 penalty units. One of the conditions of your bail was the imposition of a curfew between 9pm and 6am. Your conduct on the evening of 18 July 2017 contravened that condition of bail, an offence that also carries a maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to 30 penalty units.

8After five minutes, the two males upstairs returned carrying a safe that belonged to Marcello Narrios-Hughes, containing $11,650 in cash. They also carried a Sony PlayStation gaming console and a pair of Nike runners. The safe had been at the bottom of the cupboard in Ms Hughes’ bedroom.

9As the males were leaving, Ms Hughes pleaded with them to return her phone. The male who had taken it then returned the phone to Ms Hughes telling her not to call police. The three co-accused then left through the rear of the property. These are the circumstances giving rise to the charge of theft.

10Ms Hughes used the phone to call her son who then drove to the house with his girlfriend, Madeleine Lynch and her mother Tracy Lynch and another friend. Ms Hughes’ son ran into the house and checked the backyard. Ms Hughes, Madeleine and Tracy Lynch waited at the front for police to arrive.

11Approximately ten minutes later, you Mr Babo returned to the address together with the co-accused Okello, Deng and Atem. One of the group held a baseball bat and at least some of the others were in possession of knives. Madeleine and Tracy Lynch returned to their car in fear of being attacked. Ms Hughes remained on the nature strip. One of the group confronted Ms Hughes, asking where her son was. The same male tried to take her phone again, but she refused to hand it over. By this stage, other vehicles were coming and going, and there was a commotion on the street. The group of males, including you Mr Babo, left shortly afterwards. Fortunately, no one was physically harmed during the confrontation.

12At approximately 9.05pm that evening, the police intercepted a car that you were driving, Mr Babo in Preston, 200 metres from the incident. Mr Deftereos you were seated in the front passenger seat and the three co-accused were in the back of the car. The car, a Toyota Camry, was registered in your name Mr Babo.

13Police searched the car and found the items stolen from the Hughes’ home, including the stolen safe containing $11,650 together with the red baseball bat, two silver knives and items of disguise being beanies and a balaclava. Numerous plastic bags containing cannabis were located throughout the vehicle. The total weight of the cannabis was 687.1 grams. You have both pleaded guilty to the theft and possession of the cannabis.

14Mr Babo, you have also pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods, being a laptop and Apple MacBook Pro found in the boot of the car which had previously been stolen from a school, Mackillop College. The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years’ imprisonment.

15Mr Babo, you have also pleaded guilty to dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime relating to other items found in the car being three iPhones, a pair of Prada sunglasses, a pair of Versace sunglasses and $265 in cash. The mobile phones had been reset and the SIM cards removed. The maximum penalty for that offence is two years’ imprisonment.

History of the proceedings

16You were both arrested and interviewed by police on 18 July 2017. Mr Deftereos, you said you knew Marcello Narrios-Hughes and that you had been to the address previously to smoke cannabis, but otherwise denied any knowledge of the offending. You both said you knew Mr Okello.  Mr Babo you also denied any knowledge of the offending. You were both charged on 19 July 2017. A committal hearing was conducted on 26 February 2018 and you were both committed to stand trial.

17In July 2018, the three co-accused pleaded guilty to the charges before me and each gave an undertaking on oath to give evidence against the two of you in accordance with the statements each had made to police. Those statements detailed your roles in the offending, particularly in relation to you Mr Deftereos and the role you played in planning and directing the home invasion on Ms Hughes’ home and in recruiting the co-accused to carry it out.

18Given the content of the additional evidence, the charges resolved to a plea of guilty in November 2018. Upon resolution of the charges, the trial scheduled in the County Court for 4 March 2019 was vacated.

The gravity of the offending

19This is a serious example of the offence of aggravated home invasion. Your counsel accepted it was serious offending. The home invasion was carried out in company, late at night when the female victim was home alone and therefore more vulnerable. It involved the use of a weapon, being a metal baseball bat, that was used in an intimidating way to smash the windows to the home to gain entry. One of the group wore a mask. The home invasion, and the subsequent theft of the safe and cash, was carried out in a targeted, confrontational and aggressive manner. The invasion of Ms Hughes’ home was traumatic and terrifying for her.

20Moreover, the offending was planned and orchestrated by you, Mr Deftereos, in the knowledge it was probable that weapons would be used. Your motive for the offending is unclear, but I am satisfied that you conceived the plan knowing where the stolen items, including the cash and drugs, were to be found. It was you who advised the co-accused about the potential need to use force to gain information. By your plea, you acknowledge that the co-accused entered the premises armed. I find that you were probably aware of this would occur in the context of your earlier discussions with the co-accused.

21It is not to the point that you remained in the car. Where you are involved in the offending, the law provides that you are equally responsible for the actions of your co-offenders with whom you are part of a joint criminal enterprise. I find that you, Mr Deftereos, were the principal offender. As McLeish and Niall JJA observed in Sikoulabout v the Queen [2018] VSCA 268 at [88]:

“… an offender who conceives of a plan to commit an aggravated burglary or home invasion, recruits others to give effect to the nefarious plan and then assists in its execution bears a heavier culpability than the co-offenders who do not share responsibility for the conception of the plan.”

22In contrast however, I am satisfied that you Mr Babo, played a less significant role in the overall offending. There is no evidence that you played any role in either planning or directing the offending or that you entered Ms Hughes’ home. By your plea however, you acknowledge your involvement in the offending, beyond mere presence. However, having regard to your role on the night, I accept your moral culpability for the offending is less than that of the co-accused. It is, however, aggravating you committed this serious offence whilst on bail.

Victim Impact Statement

23Before I turn to consider your personal circumstances, I want to say something about the effect your actions had on Ms Hughes. This was a terrifying ordeal for her. In her victim impact statement, Ms Hughes says she has recurring flashbacks and nightmares about the incident. The events of that night have left her feeling unsafe in her home and feeling she is unable to trust people. Understandably for Ms Hughes, the traumatic home invasion has taken a significant and enduring emotional toll on her.

Personal Circumstances

24Your personal circumstances are also relevant in sentencing you.

25Ross Deftereos, you were born in Victoria and are now 23 years old. You were raised in Preston until your parents separated when you were seven years old. You have an older brother, aged 39, from whom you are estranged. However, you do remain close to your younger sister, aged 21, who continues to visit you in custody. Following your parents' separation, you continued to live with your mother. However, after she entered a new relationship, when you were aged 19, you moved out to live with your grandmother in her home in Northcote. It appears you did so to move away from your step-father who you found too strict. You have always maintained a close relationship with your mother. From the age of seven until the age of 15 years, you had no meaningful or significant relationship with your father, who had subsequently remarried and had two other children. You felt you had been abandoned by your father. In later years however, your relationship with your father has improved and both parents remain strongly supportive of you.

26You completed your primary school education at Penders Grove Primary School and then attended Brookside College. You were diagnosed with ADHD in your early years, for which you were medicated but you struggled at school. You later enrolled at Lakeview Senior College before moving to SEDA Sports School where you completed Year 12 VCAL and focused on soccer, being a talented junior player. At SEDA you studied sports development. You also played soccer for Doncaster Rovers Seniors, playing in one of the top divisions in Victoria. At the age of 20 you were the team captain, an indication of the leadership ability you demonstrated in that sport.

27After school, you intermittently worked as a brick layer, last working in May 2018.

28Sadly, the turning point in your life occurred when, after leaving home at 19 years, you began to experiment with drugs. You developed an addiction to a variety of drugs; abusing a mix of cannabis, ecstasy, heroin and methylamphetamine, known as ice. You have only one prior Court appearance for possession on methylamphetamine for which the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court sentenced you to a 12-month good behaviour bond in January 2017.  It was your drug use prior to and up to the time of your offending that connected you to the victim’s son, Marcello.

29You are fortunate to have the ongoing support of your parents and your sister. I have read the letters your parents wrote to the Court on your behalf. They express shock at your engagement in this serious offending. Your parents consider their divorce had a significant impact on you; your father stating that your early teen years were disrupted, moving between two households and having to accept new step-parents. He says that, at times, the relationship between the two families was tenuous and that you and your siblings were often “caught in-between”. Both of your parents noticed that you began to struggle in your late teens, with doubts about your future sporting aspirations. It was at this time, you stopped engaging in the SEDA program, and withdrew from old friendships.  Your mother says you distanced yourself from the family, becoming withdrawn to the point of “blocking out” the family. It was at this time your family began to suspect you were engaging in drug use.

30After you were granted bail in August 2017, you were employed by your father in the family business and were doing well for a period. However, you were arrested in June 2018 and your bail was revoked when you were charged with further offences including unlawful assault and stalking, for which you were sentenced to 31 days' imprisonment by the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on 31 July 2018. You have been on remand since that date. Following a serious assault on you in custody, you were transferred to Margoneet prison where you are currently employed as a billet on your unit.

31Clement Babo, you were born in Sudan, one of four siblings, on 3 November 1997. You have two older sisters and a younger brother. You are now 21 years old. Your family has a strong work history. Your father worked for the Red Cross in the Sudan and as a paramedic in Australia, until an injury led to his retirement. On arriving in Australia, your mother studied English at TAFE and has established a home-based day-care business.

32Your family fled Sudan to escape violence and poverty, arriving as refugees in Australia, when you were five years old. The family originally settled in Newcastle, New South Wales where you completed primary school. But your early years were disrupted.  Your family moved interstate on numerous occasions throughout your childhood. In 2014 they moved to Victoria for one year, then to Toowoomba, Queensland for a year before finally returning to Victoria.

33When the family returned to Melbourne in 2014 you spent six months at a school in Werribee that caters for students with behavioural problems. You began abusing drugs at a young age. When you were fourteen you began to use cannabis on a recreational basis; by the age of sixteen you were abusing cannabis daily.  You completed Year 11 in Melbourne and then returned with your family to live in Queensland to commence Year 12. While completing Year 12, your family decided to return to Melbourne, but you remained in Queensland living with a family friend to obtain your Queensland Certificate of Education. You describe being separated from your parents and siblings as difficult. After completing Year 12, you returned to live with your family in Melbourne and engaged in sporadic employment, working for varying periods in bricklaying, warehousing and scaffolding. However, your return to Melbourne after school also coincided with an increase in drug use, including MDMA and cocaine. You also began abusing alcohol, drinking to excess every day in the company of friends.

34You were assessed for the purposes of this plea by Ms Carla Ferrari, Consultant Psychologist in April and again in May 2019. In her report dated 3 April 2019, Ms Ferrari states that you reported a history of anxiety and depression over the past few years particularly after finishing school in 2016, explaining that you  “felt lost” and lacked any motivation. Ms Ferrari assessed you in April 2019 as suffering from moderate levels of depression, with severe levels of stress and anxiety. However, by the time of her further assessment in May 2019, she reports that you now present with normal to moderate levels of depression, anxiety and stress. Ms Ferrari assessed you as being at a high risk of drug and alcohol related harm at the time of the offending.

Sentencing considerations

35You both entered your guilty plea late in the proceedings.  However, the fact of your plea has meant that a number of witnesses, including Ms Hughes, have not been required to give evidence at trial and by your plea you have acknowledged your offending. You have saved the community the time and expense of a trial. You will be given some benefit for your guilty plea.

36In cases such as these, punishment and denunciation are important sentencing considerations however, general deterrence is the paramount consideration. The sentence I impose must act to deter others from committing serious crimes of this type.  Specific deterrence also has some relevance to the sentence I impose, although the absence of priors for you, Mr Babo and the fact you only have one criminal prior Mr Deftereos, moderates the need for specific deterrence.

37I turn now to consider the relevance of the fact that you, Mr Deftereos were 21 years old at the time of the offending, and you Mr Babo were only 19 years old. The law provides that the youth of an offender is a significant sentencing consideration for a sentencing court. This is because, in the case of a youthful offender, rehabilitation is usually far more important than general deterrence. In such cases, rehabilitation benefits the community as well as the offender where it leads to a young person assuming a productive and offence-free life into the future. This is particularly so where a youthful offender has either no or a limited prior criminal history.

Consideration

38Through your counsel, it was accepted that this was serious offending that warrants the imposition of a period of imprisonment for both of you.

39Further, it was accepted that s10AC of the Sentencing Act1991 (‘the Act’) requires the Court to impose a term of imprisonment and to fix a non-parole period of not less than 3 years (‘the statutory minimum’) unless the Court finds under s10A of the Act that a ‘special reason’ exists.

40Turning to you first, Mr Deftereos.

41Mr Sturges, who appeared on your behalf on the plea, accepted in his submissions that no ‘special reason’ under s10A of the Act exists and that accordingly, the statutory minimum applies in sentencing you.

42Mr Sturges did however, urge me to consider the sentencing principles of parity when sentencing you. The principles governing parity are based on the important notion of “equal justice”; that is, that like offences be treated alike, but also that relevant differences between offenders be capable of being treated as justifying different outcomes. If there is such disparity between the sentences to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, then the principle of parity may have been infringed.

43On 29 August 2018, I sentenced the three co-accused, each of them young offenders under the Sentencing Act1991, where each had pleaded guilty to the offences at an early opportunity. Further, and significantly, each had given an undertaking on oath to give evidence in accordance with the statements made to police at trial. In sentencing each of the co-accused, I was satisfied that the undertaking they had given was of significant value to the prosecution and for which they were entitled to a significant sentencing discount, additional to the discount for the early plea. I was also satisfied that ‘special reason’ existed to avoid the imposition of a mandatory non-parole period under s10AC of the Sentencing Act because of the undertaking given. In sentencing, it was also relevant that that each of the co-accused were young offenders with reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation. Two of the co-accused were found suitable for youth detention under s32 of the Sentencing Act. 

44Mr Deng was sentenced to a total effective sentence of three years' youth detention, Mr Atem was sentenced to three years, three months’ youth detention and Mr Okello, who was found unsuitable for youth detention, was sentenced to three years’, three months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years being fixed.

45I have taken into account the sentence imposed upon the co-accused as part of the relevant background to your sentence. The application of s10AC of the Sentencing Act1991 is however a further complicating factor in the application of parity to your case.

46Whilst I need to ensure that any disparity in sentence is justified, it is notable that two significant factors were present in mitigation of sentence for the co-accused that are not present here, being the early guilty plea, and the undertaking each had given.

47You also bear a high degree of moral culpability for the offending as the principal offender and this must also be considered in sentencing you.

48In other respects, there are matters relevant to sentence that you have in common with the co-accused. You have a limited prior criminal history, being one prior for possession of methylamphetamine dating back to 2017. This too will be your first custodial sentence of significance.  Although you are not a young offender, you are still a youthful offender and that remains a relevant consideration, although so too does general deterrence. I also find that you have reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation that are buttressed by the family support available to you although much will depend, of course, on your ability to remain drug and alcohol free over time.

49In circumstances where there is no ‘special reason’ why the statutory minimum does not apply, I am bound to impose a non-parole period of not less than three years’ imprisonment for the offence of aggravated home invasion and I do so.

50Having regard to the circumstances of the offending, your role in organising and directing the offending, the general sentencing principles to be applied balanced against the mitigating factors I have outlined, I sentence you as follows. Mr Deftereos could you please stand:

(a)On charge 1 – aggravated home invasion, I convict and sentence you to four years’ imprisonment;

(b)On charge 2 – theft, I convict and sentence you to 16 months’ imprisonment; and

(c)On charge 3 – possession of cannabis, I convict and sentence you to six months’ imprisonment.

51I order that eight months of the sentence imposed on the charge of theft (charge 2) be served cumulatively upon the base sentence imposed on charge 1. I order that the sentence imposed on charge 3 be served concurrently.

52This results in a total effective term of four years, eight months’ imprisonment. I fix a period of three years before you will be eligible for release on parole.

53I declare 295 days of pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as served.

54Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act1991 I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, the sentence I would otherwise have imposed on you would have been six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. Have a seat Mr Deftereos.

55I turn now to you, Mr Babo.

56Ms Walker who appeared on your behalf submitted that a special reason existed not to impose the statutory minimum in relation to the charge of aggravated home invasion. Under s10A(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act1991 a special reason exists if the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you have “a particular psychosocial immaturity that has resulted in a substantially diminished ability to regulate [your] behaviour in comparison with the norm for persons of that age”. In your case, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this has been established. Therefore, a special reason exists not to impose the statutory minimum on charge 1.

57In reaching this conclusion, I have given weight to the expert opinion of Ms Ferrari, consultant psychologist who assessed you on two occasions to prepare the reports tendered in evidence on your plea, in addition to her evidence before me on 9 May 2019.

58In her report dated 21 April 2019, Ms Ferrari, having outlined your personal history, including your history of drug and alcohol abuse, reported on a gradual deterioration in your mood in the 12 months prior to the offences stemming, in her opinion, from feeling unsettled and unstable and generally “lost and uncertain” after you returned to Victoria from Queensland. She states that you began to self-medicate your depressive symptoms with alcohol and cannabis, worsening your mental state and increasing your “risk of impulsive, reckless poorly considered behaviour”. I have taken that opinion into account in sentencing you.

59Ms Ferrari stated you were a low risk of further offending, given you had no prior criminal history, had expressed remorse and displayed insight into your behaviour and the impact it had on others including the victims. Relevantly, Ms Ferrari stated at paragraph [60] of her report dated 3 April 2019 that you did not clearly think through possible consequences or consider that others may be untrustworthy, and that you impressed as someone who was “somewhat naïve and impressionable”. Ms Ferrari expanded upon this in her further report dated 3 May 2019 and in evidence, stating that you display a “degree of psychosocial immaturity” including elements of “egocentricity, an inflated sense of self and bravado” coupled with naivety and an inability to consider alternatives. Moreover, that you have a tendency to “subjugate” your needs and values to avoid peers forming a negative perception of you.  Ms Ferrari added that you struggle to function autonomously, lack direction and commitment - lending further support to your comparative immaturity compared to same age peers. Ms Ferrari stated you are prone to exploitation and to bowing to peer pressure.

60Ms Ferrari, under cross-examination, was questioned about the “degree” or measure of your psychosocial immaturity. Ms Ferrari explained that the concept of relative immaturity is difficult to measure, but that nonetheless, many same age peers would be “much more mature” and better able to think through consequences than you.

61On balance, I am satisfied that your particular psychosocial immaturity as assessed by Ms Ferrari resulted in a substantially diminished ability to regulate your behaviour, particularly in the context of anti-social peer influence, when compared to the norm for others your age. I make this finding having regard to the entirety of Ms Ferrari’s expert evidence, including her assessment of you as naïve, impressionable, “lost” and prone to the influence of others, particularly when compared to same age peers.

62In sentencing you, I have also had regard to your youth, your absence of priors and to the conclusions I have reached regarding your role in the offending and, compared with the co-accused, your reduced level of moral culpability for the offending.

63As you have no prior criminal history, you are to be sentenced as a person who is otherwise of good character. I consider your involvement in this offending was significantly affected by a combination of immaturity, drug and alcohol abuse and the influence of peers in the lead up to the incident on the evening.  I have assessed your prospects of rehabilitation to be good, notwithstanding one minor subsequent matter (for which you were placed on an adjourned undertaking) particularly having regard to the strong support of your family but again, much will depend on your ability to remain drug and alcohol free, in the long term.

64Balancing all relevant sentencing considerations to which I have referred, including the sentencing principles of parity to the extent they are relevant, I sentence you as follows. Mr Babo if you could please stand:

(a)On charge 1 – aggravated home invasion, you are convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment;

(b)On charge 2 – theft, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment;

(c)On charge 3 – possession of cannabis – you are convicted and sentenced to five months' imprisonment.

(d)On charge 4 – handle stolen goods – you are convicted and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment;

(e)On the summary offences of committing an indicatable offence on bail and of contravening a conduct condition of bail – you are convicted and fined an aggregate of $300.00;

(f)On the summary offence of dealing with property – you are convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.

65I order that six months of the sentence imposed on the charge of theft, being charge 2 and four months of the sentence imposed on charge 4, handle stolen goods, be served cumulatively upon the base sentence, being charge 1. Having regard to the sentencing principle of totality, I order that all other sentences be served concurrently.

66This results in a total effective sentence of two years, ten months’ imprisonment. I fix a minimum of 18 months’ imprisonment before you will be eligible for release on parole.

67I declare 96 days of pre-sentence detention to be reckoned a served.

68Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act1991, noting the difficulty in assessing this, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, the sentence I would otherwise have imposed on you would have been three years, six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. Have a seat Mr Babo.

69Pursuant to s33(1) and s78(1) of the Confiscation Act1997 I make the forfeiture and disposal orders sought by the prosecution, noting they are not opposed.

70Are there any other matters counsel wish to raise?

71MS PILLAI:  No, Your Honour.

72COUNSEL:  No, Your Honour.

73HER HONOUR:  All right, thank you I'll adjourn the Court. If you could please take Mr Babo and Mr Deftereos. I'd like to thank counsel for their assistance. I'll adjourn, thank you.

74COUNSEL:  Thank you, Your Honour.

75MS PILLAI:  If the Court pleases.

‑ ‑ ‑