Director of Public Prosecutions v Duhovic
[2017] VSC 689
•14 November 2017
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Unrestricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2017 0111
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| - v - |
| DANIEL DUHOVIC |
---
JUDGE: | Jane Dixon J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 20 October 2017 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 November 2017 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Duhovic |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2017] VSC 689 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Recklessly Cause Injury – Acquired Brain Injury – Vigilante conduct – Offender was deceived and acted on the basis of false information – No criminal history – Shooting with registered shotgun – Strong prospects of rehabilitation – Early plea of guilty – Undertaking to assist authorities.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Mr Jeremy McWilliams | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr Phillip Dunn QC | Dean Cole and Associates |
HER HONOUR:
Daniel Duhovic, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Paul Hogan, and to recklessly causing injury[1] to Peter Hughes in Maddingley, Victoria on 24 May 2016. The maximum available sentence for murder is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence for recklessly causing injury is 5 years’ imprisonment.
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 18.
You are 34 years of age, and have no prior criminal history.
The factual background to your offending has been summarised in the Prosecution opening,[2] and I have supplemented my understanding of the facts with material from the depositions and exhibits tendered on the plea. Those exhibits include the statements you have provided to police in accordance with your offer to assist the Prosecution. As part of the plea hearing the defence also tendered some written submissions, a chronology,[3] and a psychological report from Dr James Belshaw of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health (‘Forensicare’).[4] In addition, I have heard from your father, Mr Stephen Duhovic, who was called by your counsel to give evidence at your plea hearing.
[2]Prosecution Exhibit 1.
[3]Defence Exhibit 7.
[4]Defence Exhibit 8.
You were arrested and charged on 25 May 2016. Prior to the committal hearing you indicated your intention to plead guilty. Since April 2017, you have made five statements to the police detailing the events that took place around 24 May 2016.[5] You have given an undertaking to give evidence at the trial of your co-accused, Ms Yu Tang Lo[6] who intends to plead not guilty to the indictment filed against her.
[5]Defence Exhibits 1-5.
[6]A sworn undertaking was made before me on 20 October 2017.
Paul Hogan, the deceased, was 49 years of age at the time of his death. He lived in Maddingley, and worked evenings at a noodle shop.
Mr Duhovic, you have admitted to shooting Paul Hogan in the head with a shotgun at close range while he was sitting in the driver’s seat of a van, about to reverse out of his driveway. You had never met Mr Hogan before. Mr Alan Hughes, who also resided at the Maddingley address, was in the passenger seat of the van when you fired the shotgun at Mr Hogan. Mr Hughes was injured to some degree by stray shotgun pellets, although he was not seriously injured.
The background to the shooting is as follows. You were living in Thornbury with your father, Stephen Duhovic, at the time of the murder. You have a daughter who lives with your first wife, from whom you were divorced in 2008. You have a 3-year-old son from another relationship. You remarried in 2011 to a woman of Vietnamese origin. Although you were separated from your second wife in 2016, you have remained on good terms with her.
On 8 May 2016, you flew to Vietnam to visit your son and your son’s relatives,[7] returning to Victoria on Monday, 23 May, the day before the commission of the murder. You had taken an overnight flight arriving back in the early morning. When you later turned on your phone, you received a series of text messages from Ms Lo.
[7]Report of Dr James Belshaw, dated 17 August 2017, [40].
The communications between yourself and Ms Lo occurred in the context of you having developed an attitude of protectiveness towards Ms Lo over the time that you had known her. You have said that she mostly contacted you when she needed help.
Ms Lo, who was aged 26 years old at the time, is Chinese by birth and came to Australia from Hong Kong on a working holiday visa on 26 June 2015. You originally met Ms Lo in an online chat medium known as We-Chat. You became friendly and had a brief sexual relationship with her. You allowed her to stay for a while at your father’s house. She lived there on and off until February 2016. During your friendship with Ms Lo, you had taken her to a family farm where you allowed her to practise driving, and also to fire your guns at targets. She was therefore aware that you owned and had access to a number of registered firearms.
Ms Lo needed to complete some rural work to meet the requirements of her visa, and on 27 February 2016, she found work in Shepparton. While she was living and working in Shepparton, she met Mr Hogan through an online forum. In April 2016, she left Shepparton and moved in to the Maddingley house that Mr Hogan shared with Mr Hughes.
Ms Lo and Mr Hogan commenced an intimate sexual relationship and lived together up until Mr Hogan's death in circumstances which became increasingly tense and volatile.[8] Ms Lo maintained contact with you throughout this period and frequently complained to you about Mr Hogan. She led you to believe she was being ill-treated by him.
[8]Prosecution opening, [19].
Mr Hughes observed that Ms Lo argued with Mr Hogan frequently, but that she nevertheless shared his bedroom and went on social outings with him. On Sunday, 22 May 2016, she went to Sovereign Hill with Mr Hogan.
Mr Hogan and Ms Lo arranged to marry, and a marriage celebrant attended the house on the evening of 23 May 2016 and met the pair. The celebrant was satisfied that the marriage was bona fide although Ms Lo's visa was due to expire in June 2016.
You were not aware of Ms Lo’s arrangements to marry Mr Hogan. In fact the picture painted to you in communications with Ms Lo leading up to the murder, was that Mr Hogan was a dangerous man who had assaulted her and was threatening to abduct and rape your daughter.
According to the account you gave police in your signed statements, Ms Lo told you that Mr Hogan had accessed her phone and found and taken copies of photos of your daughter that were on her phone. She also told you that he had learned where your daughter lived. You told police that Ms Lo was aware of your strong protective feelings towards your daughter and your overriding fears for her safety.
There were some 216 text messages exchanged between yourself and Ms Lo on the afternoon and evening of 23 May, and you also conversed on the phone.[9]
[9]Prosecution summary, [23]-[29]; Defence submissions, [2.6].
In the course of those communications, Ms Lo said she wanted Mr Hogan killed. She gave details of his physical appearance and the description of the van that he usually drove. She wrote in a text message at around 8 pm that night, “I want to kill it”, to which you replied in two consecutive messages, “Don’t talk silly stuff” and “Just say hate”. Ms Lo’s reply was “Nah I seriously want it dead”.
At 10:23 pm you sent a message asking Ms Lo if she was ok. Ms Lo responded, ”I’m ok thanks”.
The following morning, on May 24 at 6:48 am, Ms Lo sent a text message to you alleging that she had been beaten up by Mr Hogan, and asking you to pick her up from his house. This message was followed by a phone call to the same effect in which she said she did not feel safe to remain there. She said Mr Hogan was at the house and she wanted him killed. She also said he had plans to rape and kill your daughter. She told you that the deceased was a paedophile and that your daughter was at risk.
It was in response to these urgent entreaties that you set off in your car armed with your gun.
You told police you had been thinking all night about killing the deceased because of the things you had been told by Ms Lo, but you have also said that you were not sure whether you would do so when you set off.[10]
[10]Report of Dr James Belshaw, dated 17 August 2017, [48].
On the way to Maddingley, you had further text message conversation with Ms Lo and you inquired if this was the only time she had been raped by Mr Hogan. She told you it was not. When you inquired why you could not have picked her up the previous night, she responded that he had taken her phone. The messages from Ms Lo told you that Mr Hogan was in the process of leaving the house and warned you to be careful because he had a witness. You asked Ms Lo to show Mr Hogan to you when you arrived.
You believed that you had to do something to stop Mr Hogan because of the threat he posed to Ms Lo and your daughter. You were angry as a result of all that you had been told, but you concede that you took no steps to verify Ms Lo’s allegations or report them to police.[11]
[11]Third statement of Daniel Duhovic, made on 3 May 2017, [11].
When you arrived, Ms Lo was standing on the front lawn with her belongings placed in the driveway behind Mr Hogan’s van. Mr Hogan was intending to drive Mr Hughes to the railway station. Mr Hogan sought to leave whilst Ms Lo was in the process of moving out of the house. He began to reverse his van, running over Ms Lo’s belongings which she had placed on the ground behind his van. It is not known whether Mr Hogan was aware of the boxes placed on the driveway behind his van but it so happened that as you arrived in the street and approached the address, Mr Hogan was in the process of reversing his van over the top of Ms Lo's belongings.
You parked behind the van and got out of your car wielding your shotgun. Ms Lo said to you, “He’s in the van”. You walked up to the driver’s side window and fired your gun directly at Mr Hogan’s face. The shotgun blast was to the head of Mr Hogan and pellets from that shot also struck the hand of Mr Hughes who was seated in the front passenger seat. Mr Hughes fled from the car and ran away in terror.
Following the shooting, Ms Lo got into your car and then after helping her collect her belongings, you drove her away. She told you she had been assaulted and raped multiple times by Mr Hogan and his housemate. You took Ms Lo to her workplace and then to the residence of one of her friends. You then changed cars and drove Ms Lo to the Alfred Hospital, and followed on to the Royal Women’s Hospital when she was referred there.
In the aftermath of the shooting, you began to doubt whether Ms Lo had been truthful in what she had said about Mr Hogan.
Since being charged with murder, and having had time to reflect on what took place, you have come to realise that you were misled into committing a dreadful act. You fully accept that you must face the consequences of your rash and foolish deeds. You are aware of the enormity of the loss suffered by those who have been impacted by your criminal and wrong-headed actions. A man lost his life because of you.
Victim Impact Statements
Three victim impact statements were tendered at your plea hearing. Those of Mr Hogan’s mother, Valda Hogan,[12] and his aunt, Irene Carr,[13] were read out loud in court by Mr McWilliams. The third statement was from a neighbour who witnessed the offending.[14] I have taken all three statements into account.
[12]Prosecution Exhibit 2.
[13]Prosecution Exhibit 3.
[14]Prosecution Exhibit 4.
Valda Hogan, the mother of Paul Hogan, spoke in her victim impact statement of her profound grief at having her son’s life stolen away from her. She remembers the day she learned of his death as the worst day of her life. Mr Hogan fathered five children who are still young and Mrs Hogan said her grandchildren miss Mr Hogan dearly. Irene Carr also described the shock of learning of her nephew’s death.
The victim impact statements reflect the pain and loss that is felt when firearms are used to perpetrate violent and criminal acts. I am aware that many other people who have not filed a victim impact statement will have been affected by your actions, too. I also take into account the effects of your crimes on Mr Hughes who suffered physical injury and trauma as a result of the shooting, whilst also witnessing the murder of his friend.
Personal circumstances of the accused
Mr Duhovic, you were born and grew up in Victoria. Your parents migrated here from Yugoslavia in 1971. You have three full siblings and one step-sister. Your parents separated when you were seven years old, and you grew up with your father, who is a carpenter. Your mother had developed a psychiatric disorder and had been admitted to hospital for treatment during your childhood.[15] You spent your childhood in Preston and finished high school in Northcote, before enrolling in a TAFE programme in Science at Swinburne University.
[15]You reported that your mother had bipolar affective disorder, Report of Dr James Belshaw, dated 17 August 2017, [24].
At the age of 18, you were injured in a very serious motorcycle accident on the Tullamarine Freeway, that has had ongoing consequences for you. You suffered head injuries and acquired a brain injury.
You were admitted to hospital for six weeks, five of which were spent in intensive care. You were in a coma during this time and had other health complications and injuries from the accident. Upon discharge, you spent a further six weeks in a rehabilitation hospital learning to walk, talk and eat again.
Radiology revealed “diffuse axonal injury and intracranial haemorrhage in the right frontal, right temporal and right parieto-occipital subdural areas.” Your acquired brain injury led to a reduction in speed of information processing, verbal fluency and recall of visuospatial information. You were also diagnosed as have poorer frustration tolerance and planning.[16]
[16]Ibid, [67].
Your acquired brain injury (‘ABI’) has had a lasting impact on your life. You have reported to forensic psychiatrist Dr Belshaw that you noticed that you were prone to outbursts directed towards your father following the brain injury.[17]
[17]Report of Dr James Belshaw, dated 17 August 2017, [17].
You attempted to obtain qualifications and regular work since the accident, but were unable to hold down a steady job for any period of time. In court, your father Stephen Duhovic gave evidence that after the accident you did not seem to have the patience for outside work. Instead, you occupied yourself by working with your father and your brother, “helping them with their businesses and their lives”.[18] You have been in receipt of a Disability Support Pension.
[18]Ibid, [11].
Your father’s perception of the changes in your functioning since the motorcycle accident were that “[he] just wasn’t rational sometimes…. His thinking was very slow. It took a long time for him to actually decide on certain aspects of things, what to do and how to do it.”[19] Your father also described your close relationship with your daughter and other family members and your remorse for your crimes.
[19]Transcript, 20 October 2017, p 45.
Dr Belshaw said of you that “potentially due to a combination of his brain injury, the residual cognitive impairments, and the psychological manifestations of his accident , he appears to have led a life dictated by more rigid and inflexible moral codes and behaviour“ and that “this more stringent lifestyle appears to have led to difficulties maintaining intimate relationships and finding ongoing, gainful employment.”[20] Dr Belshaw opined that you do not suffer from a mental illness but may have an adjustment disorder secondary to your circumstances in prison.
[20]Dr Belshaw also stated that there may be subclinical difficulties in the control of his underlying emotional states which made him prone to periods of depressed mood, Report of Dr James Belshaw, dated 17 August 2017, [82].
Dr Belshaw and others have noted your atypical interpersonal style. Having observed you give evidence,[21] this description has some resonance. On reception at the Metropolitan Assessment Prison you were described by a psychiatric nurse as displaying rigid thought processing and interpersonal interaction akin to an ‘automaton’”.[22] The neuropsychological follow-up in December 2016 attributed your atypical presentation to a combination of residual cognitive problems due to the ABI, and your personality style.
[21]In a Basha on 3 August 2017, in the matter of DPP v Yu Tung Lo.
[22]Ibid [63].
Your first marriage was to a woman still in her teens when you were only 20. This marriage ended and you married for a second time but were unable to sustain your this marriage either. Nevertheless, Mr Dunn QC submitted that family is very important to you and that it was partly due to your intense feelings about your daughter that you were able to be persuaded to act as you did.
You are currently closely supported by your family and have been regularly visited in prison by your previous partner, your daughter, ex-wife, father and siblings.[23]
[23]Ibid [62].
Your conduct in prison has been exemplary and you have earned an ‘essential working prisoner’ status, which is a status reserved to a small number of trusted prisoners. You requested to work six days a week and have maintained billet work for five months. You work up to six days per week in the kitchen, and your role takes you to different units within the prison.
Submissions from the parties
The circumstances of your offending are unusual. Both the Prosecution and your counsel submitted that there are no directly comparable cases.[24] However, I have reviewed some cases which have involved somewhat similar factual circumstances.[25] I have had regard to current sentencing practice for the crime of murder.[26] Additionally, I have paid particular attention to sentencing in the relatively small subset of cases where the offender has pleaded guilty to murder and undertaken to give evidence for the prosecution.[27]
[24]Transcript, 20 October 2017, p 52 lns 2-6; p 60, lns 19-25.
[25]See R v Parsons; R v Stocker [2004] VSCA 92; R v El-Ahmad [2004] VSCA 93 (but noting a distinction where financial reward is also offered); R v Clarence Stanley Nelson [2013] VSC 72; R v Dowsett [2009] VSC 88; R v Barker [2017] VSC 271.
[26]See eg, Sentencing Snapshot, “Sentencing trends in the higher courts of Victoria 2011-12 to 2015-16”, April 2017; Victorian Sentencing Manual, “Murder Case Collections” (10 November 2017); Victorian Sentencing Manual, “Overview of Murder Sentences in the Court of Appeal”.
[27]R v Tepsut [2015] VSC 399; R v Lewis [2015] VSC 252; R v Dowsett [2009] VSC 88; R v Johnston [2008] VSCA 133; R v JH [2006] VSC 201. (I have not included gangland killings in this examination).
In directing the court’s attention to the objective features of the offence, Mr Dunn QC emphasised that you were goaded into carrying out the attack in the misguided belief that you needed to urgently act to protect Ms Lo and your daughter. It was submitted that the pressure you experienced at the behest of Ms Lo was also being practised on others, although to less effect. Mr Dunn QC pointed to prosecution evidence of Ms Lo having online text conversations with other male contacts between 18 and 22 May, in which she expressed her disdain for Mr Hogan and that she wanted him dead or wanted to kill him.[28]
[28]A conversation along these lines was said to have taken place with Mark Saunders, on 18 May 2016. There was another conversation with Christopher MacFarlane during the daytime on 22 May.
Mr Dunn QC also highlighted that your state of mind was impacted by fatigue from your recent travels and the time zone difference.[29] The entreaties from Ms Lo gained momentum over the period from the evening of May 23 and following the first early morning message on May 24. Mr Dunn QC submitted that seeing Mr Hogan run over Ms Lo’s belongings when you arrived at his address reinforced in your mind that Ms Lo’s allegations were true.[30] It was also put that that your ability to properly consider Ms Lo’s allegations was affected by constitutional factors personal to you.[31]
[29]See Report of Dr James Belshaw, dated 17 August 2017, [40]; Transcript, 20 October 2017, p 31.
[30]See also, Report of Dr James Belshaw, dated 17 August 2017, [48].
[31]In particular your ABI.
Whilst Verdins[32] was not specifically relied on, Mr Dunn QC submitted that your acquired brain injury when combined with the pressured circumstances of the day, meant that you were on the cusp of Verdins considerations. He drew attention to Dr Belshaw’s comment:
the areas of brain injury and resulting neurological deficits… may have chronically impaired his social judgment, providing a vulnerability to others to influence his decisions. Additionally these deficits combined with the heightened emotional intensity of the situation, could have impaired his capacity to think clearly and make calm and rational choices at the material time.[33]
[32]R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.
[33]Report of Dr James Belshaw, dated 17 August 2017, [87].
Mr Dunn QC submitted that you were disposed to a rigid way of thinking, inhibiting your capacity to think through your actions and leading you to act in a way that was uncharacteristically violent. However, it was also conceded on your behalf that you were aware that what you were doing was wrong when you shot Mr Hogan.
Mr Dunn QC argued that your prospects of rehabilitation are strong by reason of your early plea of guilty, your open acceptance of responsibility for what you did, your ongoing assistance to the Prosecution and your sorrow at the grief you have caused to Mr Hogan’s family.
You have expressed this remorse throughout your five police statements, your handwritten letter of apology addressed to the family of Mr Hogan[34] and your discussions with Dr Belshaw and your father. The Prosecution did not take issue with the submission that you are remorseful.
[34]Dated 2 June 2017, Defence Exhibit 6.
As a result of your remorse and favourable prospects for rehabilitation it was submitted that specific deterrence should not be given significant weight. This was conceded by the Prosecution. It was further submitted that a greater than usual disparity between the head sentence and the non-parole period would be appropriate.
The Prosecution submitted that the circumstances of the offending are in the high range of objective gravity, and that general deterrence and denunciation ought to be reflected in the sentence. You drove your car for an hour to Maddingley and in broad daylight shot a man you had never met, outside his own home. Mr Hughes was also wounded in the attack.
The Prosecution accepted that your ABI could be taken into account to explain why you responded as you did to the encouragement and persuasion from Ms Lo, and why the idea took hold on you in a way that it might not have for a person without your impairment.[35] However, it could not moderate general deterrence to a great extent.
[35]Transcript, 20 October 2017, p 56.
Regarding your past and future assistance in the prosecution of Ms Lo, the Prosecution indicated that the evidence you can give will greatly assist the Prosecution case, although it was submitted that the prosecution of Ms Lo does not depend for its success wholly on your evidence.
Conclusion
In determining an appropriate sentence, I consider that the objective gravity of your offending is very considerable, and that denunciation and general deterrence are significant matters that must be taken into account.
In a properly functioning democracy, vigilante behaviour cannot be countenanced. As Winneke P said in DPP vWhiteside and Dieber,
The law jealously guards the sanctity of human life…. Those who act in disregard of it by taking the law into their own hands and inflicting punishment upon those whom they unreasonably believe have committed offences must expect condign punishment.[36]
[36]DPP v Whiteside and Dieber (2000) 1 VR 331, 337, [20] (Winneke P).
Shootings of the kind perpetrated by you cause significant community disquiet. The courts and the community are also justly concerned when those who are registered to own guns use their firearms for criminal purposes.[37]
[37]See the remarks of Nettle JA in R v Clarence Stanley Nelson [2013] VSC 72, [38].
In my view your ABI mitigates your moral culpability to a modest extent[38] although you must have known that it was wrong to attempt to take the law into your own hands rather than contacting police about the information relayed to you by Ms Lo. There is room to moderate general deterrence to a small degree because of the constitutional factors referred to in Dr Belshaw’s report. At any event the background to the offending and how it transpired must be reflected in my overall consideration of a just sentence.
[38]See DPP v Spence [2015] VSC 321 [67]; R v Walker, de Bono and Conci [2003] VSC 155 [60]; R v Koelman [2010] VSC 561; R v Furlan [2014] VSC 361; DPP v Patterson [2009] VSCA 222, [48]-[49].
It was acknowledged by the Prosecution that in considering the objective gravity of the offence where you acted in response to the encouragement and persuasion of Ms Lo, the case is distinguishable from cases where the motivation for the crime is some kind of financial or other reward.
Your sentence is mitigated by the absence of any criminal history or history of violence. I also acknowledge the intense pressure applied to you by Ms Lo which persuaded you to act as you did. In this regard, I accept that you were particularly susceptible to the influence of Ms Lo, for reasons already referred to.
I do not regard specific deterrence as requiring much weight in your case. Protection of the community will be served by the sentence I am imposing. I consider that your expressions of remorse are genuine, and in light of your good behaviour in prison and your willingness to assist authorities, your prospects for rehabilitation are strong.[39]
[39]In fixing the non-parole period, I refer to the reasoning in R vVZ, that the main considerations when determining a non-parole period are the prospects of rehabilitation of the offender, R v VZ [1998] VSCA 32, [11].
I must balance my findings about your background, character and prospects for rehabilitation along with the need to give weight to general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment.
I must also apply the principle of parsimony under s 5(3) of the Sentencing Act.
Most significantly in your case you are entitled to the special discount that applies when a person agrees to testify against a co-offender in a murder trial. The risks that are attached to taking this course are well known and those risks pertain to the whole of the sentence undertaken by a prisoner. The courts recognise that this is not an easy course for a prisoner to take, especially when standing sentence for more serious crimes involving lengthier sentences.
In Cottee v R Weinberg JA said,
It is very much in the public interest that those who commit offences be given every encouragement by the courts to inform upon their co-offenders, and to give evidence against them. If that means that those who are informers receive the benefit of sentences that are significantly lower than they might otherwise merit, that is a price which society must be willing to pay.[40]
[40][2010] VSCA 285, [25].
I am therefore bound by law to give very significant weight to your early plea, your ongoing cooperation with police and your undertaking to give evidence in the trial of Ms Lo by providing a substantial discount on the sentence that I would otherwise have imposed. The discount relates not just to the plea of guilty and your past cooperation, but also to your sworn undertaking to assist the Crown in the prosecution of Ms Lo. I should say that in my view your evidence is important to the successful prosecution of Ms Lo. I say this having seen cross-examination of you in a preliminary hearing.[41]
[41]Evidence given on a Basha, 3 August 2017, in the matter of DPP v Yu Tung Lo. The words and actions of Ms Lo directly before the shooting are of considerable significance to the Crown case.
The sentence I am about to impose will not satisfy those who have been most affected by your crimes. No sentence that I impose can take away the pain and suffering that has been inflicted by your actions.
Furthermore, it can be difficult for family members and others affected by serious criminal conduct to appreciate the reasons why the law requires substantial discounting of sentences when the offender agrees to testify for the Crown. As already indicated, if such behaviour is not appropriately rewarded, the incentives to cooperate with prosecuting agencies will be markedly diminished. The courts recognise that there are repercussions that extend beyond the reach of the sentencing court when a prisoner undertakes to bear witness for the Prosecution.
In handing down sentence, I am obliged to declare for the record that I am imposing a less severe sentence pursuant to s 5(2AB) of the Sentencing Act1991 because of the undertaking you have given to assist the Crown after the date of your sentencing. I direct that your undertaking to give assistance be noted in the records of the court. If you fail to comply with that undertaking to give evidence when called upon, you will be brought back to this court for re-sentencing and a more severe sentence will be imposed.
I will now pass sentence on you for the murder of Paul Hogan and for recklessly causing injury to Mr Hughes.
Daniel Duhovic, on the charge of murder, which is the base sentence, I sentence you to 15 years imprisonment.
On the charge of recklessly causing injury to Mr Hughes who was injured by the same gunshot, I sentence you to 6 months imprisonment, three months of which is to be cumulative on the sentence for murder.
The total effective sentence is 15 years and three months imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 11 years.
I am required to state the sentence I would have imposed but for your plea of guilty, under s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act. This is inextricably linked with the discount I am obliged to give for your offer to assist the Prosecution.
I therefore state under s 6AAA that, but for your plea of guilty and cooperation with the Crown including your offer to give evidence against your co-accused at her trial, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 22 years and six months imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years.
I declare pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act, 538 days as time already served, excluding today.
I make the forfeiture order and the forensic sample order sought by the Prosecution.
I make the disposal order sought by the Prosecution, to be carried out at the conclusion of the proceedings against Ms Yu Tang Lo.
---
14
0