Director of Public Prosecutions v England

[2016] VCC 1486

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

AT GEELONG
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 16-01238

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JADE LOUISE ENGLAND

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	31 August 2016, 4 October 2016
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 October 2016; Revised 25 October 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v England
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VCC 1486

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Office of Public Prosecutions	Mr K.J. Doyle	OPP
For the Accused	Mr A. Paull	Geelong Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR:        

1In the early hours of the morning of 22 February this year, you Jade England, committed an armed robbery at a petrol station/convenience store.   You produced a sawn-off double barrelled shotgun from your handbag which you pointed at the console operator, as you demanded he empty the till and give you the money. You also made him give you cigarettes, and for good measure,  stole a CD from the counter display. You obtained $465.70 in cash, just over $160 worth of cigarettes, and a $25 CD. 

2       Fifteen months earlier you had been placed on a 12 month community corrections order, which had a supervision condition. As a result you were prohibited from possessing a firearm for a period of five years.  

3       Two weeks after this armed robbery at the service station/convenience store, with a co offender armed with what appeared to be the same sawn off double barrelled shotgun, which he pointed at the cashier, you joined him in trying to rob a gaming venue.  The two of you were forced to flee empty-handed when the man at whom the gun was pointed threw a computer mouse in the face of your co-offender.  It hit him in the eye and, causing him to turn tail and run, with you following him. The two of you were seen arriving at and leaving the premises in a car which had been stolen earlier that day. 

4       Two days after the attempted armed robbery at the gaming venue, with the same co offender with whom you had tried to rob the gaming venue he - again armed with that sawn-off shotgun, which he pointed at two customer service officers, and you this time armed with a screwdriver which you held in clear view as you took possession of the cash which was ultimately handed over by the two customer service officers, committed an armed robbery on a bank.  

5       You were grabbed by a customer as you followed the gunman out, with the stolen cash in your bag.  As you were grabbed you called out to your co-offender,  “Shoot him, shoot him, shoot the bastard”.  The gunman turned back, raised his gun and pointed it directly at the customer who was trying to restrain you, but then turned away and ran out, abandoning you.  Another customer joined in trying to restrain you and in the course of the struggle you stabbed that second man in the leg with a screwdriver.  

6       Nonetheless, they managed to subdue and restrain you and you were arrested by the police when they arrived shortly thereafter.  You were significantly substance impaired.  So substance impaired that you were deemed to be unfit for interview.  You were interviewed some considerable time later after you had been remanded in custody and you made admissions to the second and third, the attempt and the final armed robbery but professed not to remember anything much about the first. 

7       As a result, you have now pleaded guilty to one charge of armed robbery and one of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm in relation to the first incident, the armed robbery at the service station.  You have pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted armed robbery in respect of the attempted armed robbery of the gaming venue, and to a second charge of armed robbery and a charge of recklessly cause injury in relation to the armed robbery of the bank and the stabbing of the customer as he tried to restrain you with the screwdriver.  You have also pleaded guilty to a charge of theft of a motor vehicle that being put on the basis that you were the user of a stolen vehicle, not necessarily the original thief.  That stolen vehicle was used in both the attempted armed robbery of the gaming venue and the armed robbery at the bank two days later.  

8       These are, Ms England, as your counsel acknowledged, not only serious offences, but serious examples of their type. This was a real, not an imitation firearm.  It had been modified, by the sawing off of the barrels. On each occasion the firearm was pointed directly at the person who had control of the money and of whom the demand to hand over the money was being made. On the first occasion you yourself were the person who held and pointed the firearm. On the second and third occasions, it was clear that you were aware of, and a party to the use of the firearm in order to achieve the end of attempting to or actually robbing the people of their money and on the third occasion, not only were you aware that the firearm was being used to point at the customer service officers to get the money but you then directed your co-offender to shoot the customer who was trying to restrain you.

9       There was clearly planning that went into each of the armed robberies and the attempt.  There were at least two offenders on each occasion. Efforts were made to disguise yourselves or to conceal your faces so that you could not be identified. On at least one occasion you were wearing gloves. On the first occasion where you were the person who actually pointed the firearm, you were clearly working in concert with a female co-offender.  She had entered the convenience store before you, had distracted the console operator and pretended throughout to be an innocent bystander and co-victim rather than co-offender.

10     On the second occasion not only did you use a stolen car, but it was parked close by the door with the engine left running and, on the third occasion that same stolen car was  used and it was again was left parked around the corner with the engine running.  On the third occasion your co-offender was wearing the balaclava or beanie on that occasion that you had worn in the attempted armed robbery of the gaming venue.  It is clear that each location had been identified and each target had been identified. 

11     Victim impact statements from the manager at the gaming venue who had the gun pointed at him, and the two customer service officers at the bank who had had the gun pointed at them were tendered on the plea hearing.  They speak in very simple but very human terms about the long lasting impact on them of this behaviour.  Mr Graham was the duty manager at the gaming venue.  He had been the victim of an armed robbery 20 years earlier when he was working in a hotel.  On that occasion, he had been taken to the hotel cash room, tied up and had a gun pointed at him for five minutes.  One assumes, whilst the timer, safety delay on the safe was running down.  He had managed to deal with that and continue to work in areas where there was always some residual risk of having a gun pointed at him and having money demanded but it's not a comfortable feeling.  It wasn't for him and it certainly wasn't for his wife. 

12     Although he had been trained and it was in fact company policy if somebody came in attempting to rob the gaming venue - and armed, to simply hand over money in order to not put themselves or anybody else at risk, his instinctive reaction based, it would appear, on a strong desire not to be victimised by having a gun pointed at him again, particularly if he were tied up, was to try and resist and that's why he threw the mouse at the gunman. 

13     He has been profoundly affected not only by what happened but by his response and the consequences of it.   He feels guilty that he did not instinctively submit to the gunman's demands, guilty that he  rendered it more likely that he and his customers might have been subject to violence, to being shot, as a result of his attempts to resist.   He relives this and the previous armed robbery, not surprisingly one might think, and he has been subjected to criticism from his work colleagues and from others including his wife for acting in a way that put himself and others at risk by resistance. He concluded his victim impact statement by saying:  "Because of this incident I find it hard to forget and forgive because they have robbed me of my confidence."  He and also his wife have needed and continue to need counselling to help them come to terms with not only what happened but that terrible fear of what might have happened.

14     The two customer service officers at whom the gun was pointed in the second armed robbery at the bank were both women.  One of them had had worked in banks for 34 years and she said she had always felt safe and in control of her surroundings even when working in an open plan branch such as this one was but you have taken away that sense of safety and control that she had.

15     She said in her victim impact statement that she has slowly managed to  return to work but with adjusted hours and duties.  She experiences flashbacks and has had to significantly reduce the contact with customers as well as her working hours.  The first day she went back to work and walked through the door she was so distressed that she shook and cried for an hour before she was calm enough to be able to go  home.  She still cannot serve on the counter where the robbery occurred and has frightening memories and flashbacks triggered not just by a work surroundings but by seeing people in hoodies suddenly appearing in her field of vision.  

16     The other customer service officer from the bank has also had a long history working in banks and had been used to working on a relieving basis, moving from branch to branch.  She found that good, she liked the different surroundings, however, she feels unsafe now not knowing which branch she will be at or what the surroundings will be like, where her lines of safe escape are and where she can go for protection if she needs it.  She experiences panic attacks and she has flashbacks triggered not only by the memories themselves but by things that bring the memories back; whenever she sees policeman or a  security guard because she knows they carry guns, whenever she sees a person in a hoodie, or for that matter, even people in dark bike helmets with the visors pulled down. 

17     Although she too has managed has returned to work, she has not been able to return to her previous role in customer service, nor has she been able to work again in an open plan branch.  She has been diagnosed now with suffering from  an anxiety disorder and like your other victims is still having counselling in order to help her deal with the lasting impact of the armed robbery.

18     It is not surprising that each of them has written of their experiences in that way and it doesn't take long for a person to sit and think that might be the impact of their behaviour.  It is knowledge that could easily have been with you before you embarked upon any of these acts.  

19     It is clear therefore that subject to considerations personal to you denunciation, just punishment and deterrence loom large in the sentencing mix.  Armed robberies or attempts to commit armed robberies, pointing guns at people who are just doing their jobs, providing the sort of service that all of us avail ourselves of in our everyday lives, not only threatens those individuals but threatens the sense of safety of the whole community.  It threatens that sense of safety and wellbeing  and no civilised community can accept this behaviour.  Those who think to engage in it must understand how unacceptable this threat to individual autonomy and safety is and the threat to our lawful and orderly conduct of our daily activities.  

20     We have always thought ourselves fortunate in Australia to live in a society where there is not a gun culture such as that in the United States; where ordinary citizens feel that the only way they can be safe is to carry a gun and to pull it at the first sign or sense of any threat.  But conduct such as you engaged in generates that sense in people that they can only be satisfied of their own safety by retaliatory or indeed, pre-emptive gun use and that is something that I hope this country never gets to but your conduct contributes to a real fear that that might happen. 

21     So, those who think that they can engage in such conduct such as you did must understand that when detected, as you so often are, that you will face stern punishment.  It is no mitigator that the monetary yield was so small.  It was only a few hundred dollars on each occasion.  It is a terrible toll you've exacted on your victims for such a small amount of money.  That you could place people in such fear, and cause such long lasting harm to them, and risk such serious injury to them or to others for such a paltry sum if anything makes it worse rather than less serious. 

22     You, Ms England,  are 29 years old now and come from a supporting and loving family.  They still support you, they have been at court with you on each occasion the matter has been before the court and they promise to continue to support you during what is acknowledged to be the terms of imprisonment that inevitably must flow from this, and upon your release. 

23     You are, it would appear, of at least average intelligence and you were offered all the opportunities that good schooling as well as good parenting do to enable a person to establish herself well in life. You reported having been a rebellious and difficult child and you left home against your parents’ wishes at the age of 13, school by the end of Year 9, having been expelled by then from three separate high schools.  You reported that you were always mixing with the naughty kids. 

24     You have at various times had employment in retail, hospitality, and as a chef. It would appear that no individual job lasted very long, and you reported to Dr Turnbull, the psychiatrist who conducted the most recent assessment of you for the purposes of this plea hearing that you had difficulties in workplaces because you were looking for something more fun or you weren't prepared to shoulder responsibility.  You were dismissed from your last retail position, it would appear, for being consistently late.  You have not been in paid employment in the last four years.  That may be, in part, because of the childcare responsibilities that you have had. 

25     You have had two significant relationships, and have three children from those; they are now aged 9, 6 and 3. You report each of those two relationships was violent and marred by the significant drug use of your partner.  Two years ago your children were removed from your care and are now with DHHS intervention and, through Children’s Court orders, in the care of your parents. 

26     I was told that the removal of your children from your care led to alienation from your parents although it seems that that has been bridged since your remand in custody, and more significantly perhaps, it led to a spiralling by you into heavy substance abuse and in particular, to ice abuse.  I am told that until two years ago, until the time of the removal of the children from your care, although you had used illicit substances and they had been a feature of your life, it would appear for a long time, that hadn't been seen by you to be problematic. 

27     Certainly, despite the background of rebellious behaviour from childhood, early school leaving, mixing with "the wrong crowd" as you characterise it and the two abusive relationships marked by violence and drug use, you had not come to the attention of the criminal justice system and your children hadn't come to the attention of DHHS until you were 27.  That occurred at least in part, that DHHS intervention, by attempts to remove yourself from that seemed violent and abusive relationship and the exposure of the children, obviously, to violence and to drug abuse.  The spiral, that rapid downhill spiral didn't occur until after the children had been removed from your care. 

28     In November 2014, after the children had been removed, you were placed on a 12 month community corrections order.  That is the one which resulted in your being a prohibited person in respect of possession of firearms and led to one of the charges that you are pleading guilty to today.   That community corrections order was imposed for charges of shop stealing, threat to inflict serious injury, and assault with a weapon, as well as a driving offence, use of an unregistered vehicle and failure to answer bail.  Although, in a sense a relatively minor set of offences, offending across a range of activities and demonstrative of behaviour that shows that you were not prepared to abide by the rules that everybody else has to abide by in a variety of ways; stealing, threatening to harm people, driving without being registered, and not turning up to court despite being on bail to do so.  So, the clear support for what had already been said about your life being out of control, you not being prepared to accept responsibility and doing what you wanted when you wanted. 

29     You were placed on a 12 month community corrections order.  In addition to the supervision conditions to which I have already referred you had special conditions including drug assessment and treatment, rehabilitation and mental health treatment. 

30     By June 2015 you had contravened that community corrections order and you were dealt with for the contravention and on a further charge of fail to answer bail.  You were released on an adjourned undertaking for 12 months, again with a mental health condition that you engage with Surf Coast Mental Health.  

31     In November 2015 you were charged with possession of a drug of dependence and more driving offences and placed on a further 12 month adjourned undertaking, again conditioned on complying with lawful directions of mental health and drug treatment practitioners or counsellors.  So, it would appear that by this offending you have breached those two adjourned undertaking although they are not before me. 

32     When the plea first came on for hearing before me I was provided with a report by the psychologist Dr Aaron Cunningham.  There was no reference in that report to any previous attendances upon psychologists or psychiatrists; no reference to any previous diagnoses of any psychiatric or psychological conditions and no reference to what psychiatric or psychological conditions had led to treatment conditions on  your CCO and the two adjourned undertakings that had brought you so recently before the Magistrates' Courts.  I was concerned as to the absence of any reference to what conditions had led to those court conditions in relation to treatment and why there was no reference to any of them in Dr Cunningham's report. 

33     Dr Cunningham did express the opinion that you presented with autism spectrum disorder.  He based that on your long history of emotional social and moral impairment as he described it, your susceptibility to negative peer influence and a higher than average non-verbal fluid intelligence which was apparently inconsistent with his global or overall assessment of your  general level of intelligence.

34     But, his report did not refer to any previous diagnoses or conditions.  I was told that he had in fact been told by your solicitors of the previous court orders  and of the previous conditions attached to them.  I was told, in fact, he had been told of a previous diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and a to a previous possible diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder and childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. 

35     I expressed concerns about the failure to have any reference to those previous diagnoses in Dr Cunningham's report or to explain why his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder had not been previously made or was to be preferred to the previous diagnoses.  Mr Westmore told me that in fact, he and his instructing solicitor had specifically asked Dr Cunningham to address those matters but had declined to do so in his written report. 

36     After some discussion the plea hearing was adjourned so that a further opportunity could be afforded to ask Dr Cunningham to provide a written report to the court dealing specifically with those matters of concern or consideration being given to reatining another mental health practitioner to conduct an assessment of you with knowledge of the previous diagnoses and the previous matters which had led to those previous court orders. 

37     Ultimately, the psychiatrist Dr Leon Turnbull was retained and he provided what I consider to be a very helpful report dated 29 September 2016.  When the matter returned for hearing two days ago, Mr Westmore expressly disavowed any reliance on Dr Cunningham’s diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, as a result of the further report and opinions from Dr Turnbull and expressly disavowed any reliance on any of limbs of Verdins based on Dr Cunningham’s report. 

38     He submitted and I accept that I should rely upon the opinions expressed in Dr Turnbull's report where they are at odds with those expressed by Dr Cunningham and I consider that that is appropriate.  

39     There is nothing in Dr Turnbull’s report to provide any basis for any diagnosis of mental illness or other impairment which would operate so as to reduce your moral culpability, to reduce the weight to be given to either general or specific deterrence, or to operate so as to moderate the sentence otherwise appropriate by reason of a imprisonment having a disproportionate impact on you by reason of any mental illness or other impairment. 

40     Dr Turnbull was qualified in what he said because of the relatively limited time he had to assess you and his reluctance from a professional standpoint of providing a diagnosis of a personality disorder on what he described as a cross-sectional psychiatric assessment, although he did express a guarded view that that was the most likely diagnosis based on the way you interacted in your assessment, what he described as an unsatisfying psychiatric history and the account that you gave of your difficulties with others. 

41     He made it clear that he had not been provided with any psychiatric records in respect of you and that in order to make a more definitive diagnostic statement he would need to be provided with those but, what he did say was this: 

"In regards to the offending itself, on the information available to me, it has been a product of a combination of illicit ice use and her interaction with her co-offenders that have led to the offending.  It is Ms England's insistence that she did not want to offend and was simply following instructions and I have no real insight into the veracity of those statements. 

In regards to the diagnosis of autism I begin by qualifying that my threshold for that vein of diagnosis is probably lower than that of forensic psychologists who I write reports in parallel to as I seem to be more commonly not reaching the same conclusion.  I respect our differing diagnostic thresholds. 

I can see why Ms England could attract some thinking towards autism, that being her apparent difficulty in appreciating her own role in her life, the effect of her behaviour on others and how they would feel, and her rather blunted emotional expression.  However, in my opinion, they don't amount to the diagnosis proper, and it is underlying personality dysfunction that is more relevant. 

Ms England's main risk of re-offending seems to hinge on illicit drug use and in my opinion efforts in that regard should be the priority." 

42     He said,

"In my opinion I do not recommend a burgeoning of psychiatric services to be involved, rather, keep her treatment and management simple and directed towards abstinence of illicit drugs, rationalisation of psychiatric medication [consideration as to whether the anti-depressant that she is currently on] is a reasonable ongoing prescription, and pragmatic interventions in regards to her taking responsibility and becoming more aware of her own role in her difficulties in her life." 

43     I recommend that the prison authorities and the parole authorities take particular note of those recommendations of Dr Turnbull, so that you can be provided with the assistance, both in custody and upon your release into the community, that will help you learn to take responsibility for your behaviour, that will help you address your drug use, and to understand that indeed, your history of offending is inter-linked with your drug use and your prospects of being able to live a meaningful, drug free and offence free life and one where there is proper engagement with your family and your children and proper engagement with a decent meaningful working life, is best going to be able to be achieved by looking at those goals. 

44     Thus the matters that were relied upon by Mr Westmore and relevant to your sentencing are these:  I accept that imprisonment will be more difficult for you, not only because it is your first time in custody at the age of 29 but also because you now you have faced the reality that you will be separated from your children by reason of this offending conduct, and that you will be so for a considerable time.  You are now deeply distressed by that coming home to you of the realisation of the consequences of your offending behaviour so far as it means the removal from your children and the removal from being a part of their life for what will be a considerable part of their childhood. 

45     Next that you have pleaded guilty and that you did so at an early stage.  I accept that in the circumstances you were, by and large, co-operative with the police and that your pleas of guilty have significant utilitarian value in making admissions as to your behaviour and in pleading guilty at an early stage, thereby saving the time and cost of trial.  It has therefore led to you being able to be sentenced at a stage much earlier normally than those who are awaiting sentencing hearing do because you co-operated so in the way you did with the police enquiry and court process. 

46     People who are not so co-operative and who have not been able to be advanced through what has now been a significant reduction of the list of pending cases here in Geelong often have to wait over 12 months, sometimes up to two years before their matters are disposed of.  Whilst you are going to have to serve a sentence and it will be a considerable one, you are at least now in a position of having certainty of knowing what that will be and  you can start to plan more meaningfully for your future. 

47     I also take into account that you have expressed consistently with your pleas of guilty some retrospective regret for the impact on your victims.  It goes without saying that you should have thought of that in advance, and although after the event regret may be of little comfort to your victims I accept that it is on your part an acknowledgement of responsibility and of bearing some of the moral and emotional responsibility for the impact of your behaviour on others.  That has not been manifest in a lot of your behaviour to date. So, maybe it is a sign of the harsh reality of being remanded in custody and having to face the consequences and to face the fact that these are the results of the bad choices that you have made.

48     You are of average intelligence and on the materials before me it would appear, unimpaired by mental illness or psychological conditions that would hold you back from rehabilitation.  Should you choose to give up drugs and negative peer associations, that is to not to mix with bad people anymore, you should be able to turn yourself to a useful law-abiding person who can live a meaningful and happy life; to have good relationships with family, good relationships with good friends and good relationships with your children.  There is nothing in the material before me to suggest that you are not capable of doing that.  So, that counts in your favour in terms of an assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation and should, I hope, make you feel a bit better about yourself rather than defeated.

49     You are fortunate, as I have already said, to have continued family support and to have the capacity to engage in meaningful employment should you choose to do so. Your prospects for rehabilitation therefore must be regarded as reasonable provided you can indeed make and sustain the decision to steer clear of illicit drug use and to accept responsibility for your decisions and your behaviour in the future.

50     So, all of these matters operate to reduce the sentence otherwise appropriate. It means that whilst there must be some weight given to specific deterrence but on the other hand, to also encourage these reasonable prospects that you have for rehabilitation.  There is no need to impose a sentence that gives considerable weight to protection of the community because you should have the capacity to be able to help yourself and to plan towards that. 

51     I agree with Mr Westmore's submission that there must be a significant level of concurrency given this offending happened over a relatively short time - a 16 day period, and that the underlying cause, your spiralling drug use and your bad associations are a constant theme for all of the offending.  The sentence, of course, must reflect that principle of totality to which I have referred.  I also agree with Mr Westmore's submission that it is appropriate in the circumstances to impose a significant gap between that sentence and the non-parole period.

52     Before I formally pass sentence on you I should also just deal with the ancillary orders.  I have been asked to make an order for the provision of a forensic sample and I propose to do that having regard to the seriousness of the circumstances of the offending.  That sample I am directing is to be taken by way of a scraping from the mouth, what's called a "buccal" sample and, I must warn you that if you do not co-operate in the provision of that buccal sample which requires you just to rub a swab like a cotton bud on the inside of your mouth until a sufficient sample has been obtained, then the police are authorised to use reasonable force to obtain the sample and it is likely in the circumstances that they will use the more invasive means available by law but which I am not directing and that is the taking of a blood sample.  Do you understand that, Ms England?

53     OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

54     HER HONOUR:  I have also been asked to make a disposal order in respect of the items connected with the offending and a compensation order to, in favour of BP Vantage Fuel Service Station in the amount of $647.69.  The making of those orders was not opposed and I propose to make them. 

55     Could you now please stand, Ms England?  On the six charges to which you have pleaded guilty you are convicted. On Charge 1,  the armed robbery at the BP, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four years and six months. 

56     On Charge 2, of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 12 months.  I will make the concurrency orders at the end. 

57     On Charge 3 of attempted armed robbery of the gaming venue, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three years and six months. 

58     On Charge 4, the armed robbery at the bank you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four years and six months. 

59     On Charge 5, the charge of recklessly cause injury, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 12 months, and on Charge 6 of theft of a motor vehicle you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of six months. 

60     The sentence on Charge 1 is the base sentence and I direct that three months of the sentence on Charge 2, nine months of the sentence on Charge 3,  12 months of the sentence on Charge 4, three months of the sentence on Charge 5, and three months of the sentence on Charge 6 be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence on Charge 1. 

61 That makes a total effective sentence of seven years and I direct that you serve a period of four and-a-half years before being eligible for release on parole. I declare pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act that but for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a terms of imprisonment of ten years and fixed a non-parole period of seven years.

62     How many days of pre-sentence detention?

63     MR DOYLE:  211.

64     HER HONOUR:  I declare that you have spent 211 days in pre-sentence detention and direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served.  Just take a seat while I just check some final matters please, Ms England.

65     MR DOYLE:  The numbers are right.

66     HER HONOUR:  Numbers are right, arithmetic is correct. 

67     MR PAULL:  Yes, Your Honour.

68     HER HONOUR:   No further orders required to be made?

69     MR DOYLE:  No, Your Honour.

70     HER HONOUR:  Thank you.  Can you remove Ms England please?

71     (Offender removed.)

Addendum

72 Since pronouncing sentence, it has come to my attention that upon conviction on Charge 6, theft of a motor vehicle, section 89(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991 requires that I cancel all licenses and disqualify you from obtaining any further licenses for a minimum of 3 months.

73 Section 104A(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act permits me to amend the sentence to make an order under section 89(4) in respect of your license following conviction to theft of a motor vehicle. By order signed in chambers on 25 October 2016, I have amended the original sentence to add an order consequent on conviction on Charge 6, cancelling your licenses, and disqualifying you from obtaining a further licence for 3 months from the date that the sentence was originally imposed.

‑ ‑ ‑