Director of Public Prosecutions v Finnin
[2013] VCC 1313
•3 September 2013
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR-12-02295
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JOHN CORNELIUS FINNIN |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE SEXTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 12, 29 August 2013 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 September 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Finnin | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2013] VCC 1313 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr. T Lynch for Plea Ms F. Pace for Sentence Ms. S. Flynn (CDPP) for Sentence | OPP CDPP |
| For the Accused | Mr A. Marshall | James Dowsley & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1 John Finnin, on 24 July 2009, you were found guilty after a trial of a number of sexual offences. You were sentenced to 11 years, 10 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years. You appealed to the Court of Appeal, and were partly successful[1]. A verdict of acquittal was entered in respect of 3 counts. A re-trial was ordered in respect of 13 counts. Your appeal in respect of the 7 counts laid under the Prostitution Control Act 1994[2] was dismissed and you were re-sentenced by the Court of Appeal on those counts to a total effective sentence of 5 years, with a minimum of 3½ years before becoming eligible for parole. I am informed that sentence expires on 22 July 2014.
[1] FCJ v R [2012] VSCA 292
[2] Known from 1 November 2010 as the Sex Work Act 1994
2 The re-trial was set down in this court for 22 April 2013. On that day, you pleaded guilty to 5 charges on a fresh indictment as follows:
a charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 laid pursuant to the Victorian Crimes Act (Charge 1) with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;
a charge of committing an indecent act with a child under 16 laid pursuant to the Victorian Crimes Act (Charge 2) with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment ;
a charge of using a carriage service to groom persons under 16 laid pursuant to the Commonwealth Criminal Code (Charge 3) with a maximum penalty of 12 years’ imprisonment;
a charge of using a carriage service to procure persons under 16 laid pursuant to the Commonwealth Criminal Code (Charge 4) with a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment; and
a charge of using a carriage service to transmit child pornography material pursuant to the Commonwealth Criminal Code (Charge 5) with a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.
3 On your application, the plea was adjourned from the original date of 31 May to 12 August when it was conducted before me.
The offences
4 I sentence you on the basis of the opening which was read out by the prosecutor (Exhibit A) together with some reference to the judgement in the Court of Appeal where applicable, to which I was referred by counsel. In describing the circumstances briefly, I will refer to the main victim by the initials SG, to preserve his anonymity as required by law.
5 Charges 1 and 2 relate to a series of meetings between you and SG, which took place between February and May 2007. As summarised in the Court of Appeal judgment[3], you had initially responded to an online profile of SG on a gay website which had been posted by one of SG’s friends. Within the profile it stated that SG was 17 years old and that he was willing to provide sexual services for money. He was in fact aged 15 years.
[3] At [6]
6 On four occasions between February and May 2007, you engaged in oral intercourse with SG. Charge 1 is representative of these occasions.
7 On four occasions between March and May 2007, you engaged in mutual masturbation with SG. Charge 2 is representative of these occasions.
8 The offences laid under the Prostitution Control Act for which you are undergoing sentence relate to the same events. You offered to enter agreements with a child, SG, for sexual services for payment by money or other various items, and you then carried out those agreements by undertaking the sexual activity alleged in Charges 1 and 2.
9 As summarised in the Court of Appeal judgment[4], the Commonwealth charges relate to the use of carriage services for improper sexual purposes concerning children.
[4] At [7]
10 According to the prosecution opening on the plea, between 28 April and 12 May 2007, a series of sexually explicit emails were exchanged between you and a person claiming to be a 13 year old boy (Charge 3, relating to grooming).
11 On 3 May 2007, sexually explicit communications took place between you and a person identifying himself as a 15 year old male living in New Zealand. You agreed to fly to New Zealand to meet the boy for sexual activity, discussing travel arrangements and a meeting place (Charge 4, relating to procuring).
12 Also on 3 May 2007, sexually explicit communications took place between you and a person identifying himself as a 47 year old male. You indicated that you had just broken up with a 15 year old boy with whom you had been having sex for about 4 months, and you described these sexual encounters, including detailed descriptions of the boy’s genitals (Charge 5, relating to transmission of child pornography material).
Impact on the victims
13 I received no statement as to the impact your crimes had on any victim, including the main victim. However, there is a presumption of harm to children who are the victims of sexual offending[5]. Indeed, at the time you were speaking to a psychologist in June this year (Exhibit 1 contains a report), you recognised that SG was vulnerable, and in expressing regret for what your crimes have done to him, it is clear that you accept that there was harm done. I sentence you on the basis that the presumption of harm to the main victim has not been rebutted, but in the absence of any further evidence, I do not attempt to predict long term consequences of that harm.
[5]Clarkson v R [2011] VSCA 157
Basis for sentencing
14 I was referred by your counsel to the case of Clarkson[6] which confirmed the approach to be taken in a case where the child victim apparently consented to the sexual activity: a court must assess the circumstances in which consent came to be given, the age difference between the offender and the victim, the nature of the relationship between them, and the circumstances in which the sexual activity was initiated.
[6] [2011] VSCA 157
15 Clarkson also confirmed that one reason for the prohibition on sexual activity with a child is to protect them from exploitation by those who might seek to use them for prostitution[7], recognising that even if the child offers the sexual services, they are generally vulnerable to persuasive conduct of older and more mature persons.
[7] At [29]
16 While it is relevant to the assessment of the level of harm and the gravity of your offending that the sexual activity, the subject of Charges 1 and 2, was engaged in as a result of the child victim advertising his availability for sexual services, and I take that into account, in my view the relationship was still one of power imbalance, where on multiple occasions, you took advantage of his financial vulnerability and exploited him for your own sexual gratification, knowing that he was seeking to gain enough money to move away from his father.
17 Further, the fact that SG was close to 16 years does not of itself constitute a mitigatory factor. The protection from harm is not to be regarded as becoming less significant thereby. You were a mature man 36 years older than SG. I note that you were initially entitled to think he was aged 17 as stated in his online profile, but you have conceded through your counsel that upon learning of his true age, you continued with the exploitative relationship.
18 I sentence you on the following bases:
the gravity of the offending in Charges 1 and 2 is to be assessed in light of the matters just referred to, and I assess the offending as reasonably serious examples of those types of offences;
Charges 1 and 2 are also made more serious because each is representative of a number of offences;
I take into account that the activity in Charges 1 and 2 is the subject of the offences pursuant to the Prostitution Control Act for which you have already been sentenced, although as the charges relate to different criminality, the sentences to be imposed on Charges 1 and 2 will have some cumulation on the sentence you are undergoing;
for Charge 3, you claim through your counsel that you thought you were conversing with a man of mature age, but as the other person said they were a 13 year old boy, I find at least the possibility occurred to you that it was an adolescent person whom you were grooming, and that was why you were conversing with the person in the manner that you were;
for Charge 4, through your counsel you concede that you were, or believed you were, making arrangements for sexual activity in respect of a 15 year old boy; and
for Charge 5, I accept that the child pornography was at the lowest level of this type of offending, given that it involved discussion and description of sexual activity with a child as opposed to depiction of such activity.
19 In cases involving child victims, the need for general deterrence is of the utmost importance. By my sentence of you, I must seek to deter other men from taking advantage of adolescents who, by virtue of their age, are not in a position to make informed choices about sexual activity, or who are otherwise vulnerable to sexual exploitation. I must also deter other men from using technology to sexually exploit children.
20 It was submitted by your counsel that you have already been specifically deterred by the period of 4 years you have now spent in custody, and by the adverse publicity you endured after the first trial.
21 Because you were imprisoned on the charges pursuant to the Prostitution Control Act, you are to be sentenced as a serious sex offender for the State charges on the indictment before me. That means that the principal purpose for which sentence is imposed on Charges 1 and 2 is the protection of the community, and there is a requirement for cumulation of the sentences unless otherwise ordered. I have decided to order otherwise, allowing for partial concurrency. I may also impose a sentence longer than is proportionate on each of those charges, but I do not propose to do so, because the prosecution have not sought such a sentence and because of the factors in your favour, which I will turn to in a moment.
22 In your case, the group in the community which needs to be protected consists of post-pubescent boys. Importantly for the protection of younger boys, the psychologist you saw in June this year did not regard you as presenting with symptoms of paedophilia, but described you as having an attraction to adolescent males (hebephilia) which the psychologist regarded as a matter for therapy[8].
[8] See Exhibit 1
23 In my view, you remain a risk to adolescent males, and so there is still a need for my sentence to deter you from re-offending in future. However, I do consider your risk of re-offending to be relatively low and your prospects of rehabilitation reasonable, given your previous good character, the time spent in custody, the support of your family, and your willingness to undertake a Sex Offender Program, which, given your level of intelligence, should provide you with the opportunity to learn strategies to reduce that risk.
Factors in mitigation
Plea of guilty
24 The first of these is the fact that you have now pleaded guilty. I accept that there are differences between the charges you faced in your first trial and the charges in respect of which you have entered pleas of guilty. These differences include that there is a lower number of charges on the indictment before me (albeit two are representative of a number of occasions), and that an allegation in respect of anal penetration has not proceeded.
25 I accept that you are entitled to have the plea of guilty taken into account in your favour and I do so. By your plea, the community has been spared the time and cost of a re-trial. Further, as unfortunately SG’s evidence was not recorded at the first trial as it should have been, he was required to give evidence again. It is important to recognise that by your plea, he has been spared the ordeal of giving evidence on the re-trial.
26 As a result of these matters, I can tell you that the sentence I intend to impose is less than would have been imposed had you been found guilty after a trial.
Remorse/contrition
27 In re-sentencing you in respect of the offences pursuant to the Prostitution Control Act, the Court of Appeal noted that your offending was predatory and that you had showed neither empathy or remorse[9].
[9] FCJ v R [2012] VSCA 292 [45(iii)]
28 Your counsel submitted that there is a degree of remorse shown now by the entry of the guilty plea, and in the observations of the psychologist[10] to which I referred earlier.
[10] Exhibit 1, page 4
29 The prosecutor submitted that this remorse is late.
30 I accept that, late though it is, the plea and your comments as reported by the psychologist do reflect a degree of remorse or contrition.
Good character
31 You are now aged 57. The offending occurred when you were aged 51 years and you have not committed any offences since. You had not committed an offence before this, and so you will be sentenced as a person of good character up until then. I also accept that before the offending your general reputation in the community was good.
Overall delay not a mitigating factor in this case
32 Your counsel submitted that there has been delay in these matters being dealt with and that this delay is a mitigating factor. I do not consider that the delay overall is of such a nature and I will detail the proceedings according to the transcripts on the court file as the basis of my finding.
33 You exercised your right to contest the allegations at the first trial, and to appeal against the convictions. That process takes time. From offending in 2007 to first trial in 2009 was a period of two years, not a long delay at all in the context of the prosecution process. Your appeal was not heard until April 2012, and judgment not delivered until December that year. That period of just over three years, while not an unusual length of time for an appeal against conviction to be dealt with, is a delay I will nevertheless take into account.
34 Once the re-trial was ordered, your case was listed in this court within a week, and both parties sought to adjourn the matter – the prosecution to assess the Court of Appeal judgment and decide how a re-trial would proceed; the defence to prepare an application for discontinuance on your behalf.
35 At the next hearing on 21 January, the discontinuance application had not yet been prepared, bail was granted on the pending charges although you continued to undergo sentence on the other charges, and a trial date of 22 April 2013 was set. The prosecution opening, due on 21 February, was filed on 6 March.
36 On 21 March at the final directions hearing, the court was informed that the discontinuance application had still not been made to the Director of Public Prosecutions on your behalf, that it would be filed that day, and that counsel was briefed for both parties for a trial.
37 At a mention on 10 April, the prosecution confirmed that the complainant was available to give evidence. According to the letter you provided to the court (Exhibit 7) the discontinuance application was rejected on 16 April. On 17 April, your solicitors notified the court that the matter had resolved and that it was expected that on the original trial date of 22 April you would be arraigned and a plea date set.
38 As previously indicated, on 22 April, you were arraigned and the matter was set down for plea in the following month. The day before the original plea date, it was adjourned at your request to the next available date.
39 That is a very short period between the ordering of the re-trial and the trial date, even if not within the statutory period of three months. Further, some of the adjournments were at your request.
Personal Circumstances
40 Your background is contained in the outline of your counsel’s submissions (Exhibit 5), and in the psychologist’s report (Exhibit 1), so I will summarise it only briefly.
41 Born in Ireland, you had a violent upbringing at the hands of your father, who is now deceased. You later went to boarding school, where you were an excellent student and sportsman, and you went on to study at tertiary level and gain qualifications which led you to work abroad. Your work in hospitality management brought you to Australia in 1986. Your mother and sister still live in Ireland, and a brother lives in Australia but you have little contact.
42 You married in 1985, and you have an adopted son and three biological children. You always knew you were of homosexual orientation, but did not reveal this until the late 1990’s. In 1998, you separated from your wife; however you remained close, and despite your offending, and the effect on them of the adverse publicity, I am told that she and your children remain supportive of you. After your marital separation, you had a relationship of 5 to 6 years with a man, which ended when you began working overseas again.
43 You have worked in top level managerial roles in Australia and overseas, and have been a senior public servant and diplomat. In 2006-07, you were the inaugural CEO of Firepower Holdings Group Ltd. You discovered a major fraud being perpetrated on the shareholders, and since 2010, you have provided substantial assistance to the authorities about the role said to have been played in that fraud by your employer. Exhibit 3 contains material relevant to your assistance, which you have provided at considerable personal risk. You have been in custody since your first trial in July 2009 in respect of these sexual offences. The hours of interviews conducted with you and volumes of material provided to you for the purpose of that assistance were apparent to fellow prisoners and prison officers alike. The story of the alleged fraud was highly publicised. Your employer has been charged and you have been highly valuable to the prosecution. I take that assistance into account, together with the risk to you in providing it[11].
[11] There has been no undertaking pursuant to s21E Crimes Act (C’th).
44 I am told that it was in the context of you discovering this fraud, and the ensuing stress this caused you, that the sexual offending occurred. The psychologist reports that you resigned in April 2007, right in the middle of the offending period, but I note your Resume (Exhibit 4) states you worked for Firepower until August 2007.
45 Whenever it was that you left the company, I accept that you were under great stress in 2007, and that the events of that year provide a background to the offending by you at the age of 51, a man with no criminal history. You reported to the psychologist that you had been under the care of a psychiatrist, but I have not received any material in respect of that treatment.
46 I note that the psychologist assessed you as currently suffering from mild depression but high anxiety. It seems likely that this is at least partly related to the situation in which you now find yourself.
47 You have now spent 4 years in custody, and you have been eligible for parole since January this year on the offences pursuant to the Prostitution Control Act. While I cannot take into account the time spent in detention before you were sentenced by the Court of Appeal as that period has been taken into account there, I do note the relatively long time in custody for which you have lost any chance of concurrency, and the delay in your appeal being heard and determined is relevant here. I also note that you have spent your time in custody undertaking tertiary studies, so that you are on the way to a further qualification, and you have also been working in the prison as well as providing peer support to other prisoners.
48 As to the future, I accept that despite your excellent Resume, the adverse publicity surrounding your offending and that surrounding the Firepower case will probably make it difficult for you to secure employment at senior level upon your release from custody.
Sex Offender Registration
49 As a result of my sentence of you today, you become a registrable sex offender. This also occurred after your first convictions, and you would currently be on the Register in respect of the offences pursuant to the Prostitution Control Act ; however, the registration process starts anew for the convictions entered on this indictment.
50 As Charge 1 is an offence against a child involving penetration, that is a class 1 offence. Charges 2 through to 5 are class 2 offences. You will be required within 7 days of your release from custody to report your personal details and begin a regime of annual reporting required by the Sex Offenders Registration Act and be otherwise subject to the Act for the rest of your life under section 34(1)(c)(ii).
51 Today, I will forward to the prison where you are being held the form which notifies you of your reporting obligations, to be provided to you. It is necessary for the court to provide this to you, even though you received such a form after your first convictions. I do not require you to sign to acknowledge that you have received this form on this occasion.
Submissions
52 The prosecutor submitted that because of the sentencing principles arising from the serious sex offender provisions, the application of the principle of totality is limited in your case.
53 The note that I have from the plea is that the prosecutor further submitted that an appropriate sentence would be 3½ years with a minimum of 2 years for the State offences, and 21 months with 9 months to serve before release on a recognisance order for the Commonwealth offences. This does not seem to be an adequately broad range, or a range at all, and consequently, I am not assisted by it.
54 Your counsel submitted that the sentences submitted by the prosecutor did not properly reflect the mitigating factors, and submitted that the sentence I impose should have you eligible for parole within 12 months.
55 I have considered all of the required factors under s.16A and 16B of the Crimes Act (C’th). I have canvassed many of them throughout these reasons and will not repeat them.
56 There is no alternative to a sentence of imprisonment for the State offences, and the only appropriate sentence for the Commonwealth offences is a term of imprisonment.
57 Taking into account the factors in mitigation, and the time you have already served, while allowing for some operation of the serious offender provisions of the Sentencing Act (Vic) 1991, the prospective sentences I announced last week in seeking assistance in this difficult sentencing task, are, for each individual sentence as well as the sentence overall, much lower than would otherwise have been imposed, and orders for cumulation are likewise affected. I am conscious of the danger of artificially compressing the individual sentences[12].
[12]R v R H McL [2000] HCA 46 at [74] –[76]
58 I also note that at the time I announced the proposed sentences and levels of cumulation, I was mistaken as to the applicability of the serious offender provisions to the Commonwealth offences. While the Commonwealth offences may be taken into account in determining the status of an offender, you cannot be sentenced as a serious offender on those charges.
59 On that occasion, I said that I thought it might be necessary to set a new single non-parole period in respect of all the State sentences you are to serve or complete. However, it is not necessary to do so, as you are not currently undergoing a non-parole period[13].
[13] Section 14(1)(b) Sentencing Act
60 On reviewing the concatenation of matters relevant to your sentence, I have determined that the sentences I previously announced are nevertheless appropriate in all the circumstances.
Sentence
61 It is my intention that the total sentence I impose on all charges today provides for a period of imprisonment longer than your current expiry date, to reflect the further offending for which you are being punished, and to recognise that you are to be sentenced as a serious sex offender on two of those charges. It is my intention that the totality of the overall sentence, combined with the sentence you are undergoing, and the length of the non-parole period, reflect the factors in mitigation, principally the plea of guilty, the assistance to prosecuting authorities, and some delay, as well as the gravity of the offending.
62 On State Charge 1 – sexual penetration of a child under 16 – you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years 6 months’ imprisonment.
63 On State Charge 2 – indecent act – you are convicted and sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
64 Charge 1 is the base sentence. I direct pursuant to Section 6E Sentencing Act that 2 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be concurrent with the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and any other sentence undergoing. Put another way, 4 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 will be cumulative.
65 That makes a total effective State sentence of 2 years 10 months’ imprisonment. The total State sentence starts today. I direct that you serve a minimum of 12 months before being eligible for parole.
66 I direct that it be entered into the records of the court that I have sentenced you in respect of Charges 1 and 2 as a serious sex offender within the meaning of the Sentencing Act.
67 On Commonwealth Charge 4 - using a carriage service for procuring – you are convicted and sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment. That sentence is to commence 2 months before the expiry of the State non-parole period.
68 On Commonwealth Charge 3 – using a carriage service for grooming – you are convicted and sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment. That sentence is to commence 2 months before the expiry of the sentence imposed on Commonwealth Charge 4.
69 On Commonwealth Charge 5 - using a carriage service for transmitting child pornography – you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment. That sentence is to commence 1 month before the expiry of the sentence imposed on Commonwealth Charge 3.
70 If my calculations are correct, there will be a period after service of the Commonwealth sentences in which you will be eligible for parole on the State sentences. If you are released on parole, you will be under the supervision of the State system. In all the circumstances,[14] I therefore exercise my discretion pursuant to s19AB(3) Crimes Act (C’th) to not make a recognisance release order in respect of the total Commonwealth sentence.
[14]R v Hancock [2012] NSWCCA 20 [45]-[51]
71 You will remain entitled to the pre-sentence detention previously declared by the Court of Appeal on 6 December 2012.
72 In respect of Commonwealth Charges 3, 4 and 5, I will not state the sentence that would have been imposed if you had not pleaded guilty. Until the Commonwealth legislation specifically provides for this, or an authority which binds me states that the Victorian law applies in this instance to a Commonwealth sentence, I do not propose to do so.
73 In respect of the State offences, because Charges 1 and 2 are representative and there are factors other than your plea of guilty which have significantly reduced your sentence, it is difficult to say what sentence I would have imposed if you had not pleaded guilty but had been found guilty after a trial on individual charges of sexual penetration of a child and indecent act. Doing the best I can, I say that I would have imposed a sentence of 8 years with a minimum of 6 years. That declaration says nothing about any concurrency which could be ordered with the State sentence you are already undergoing, or with the Commonwealth charges.
74 Can I just return to the sentencing orders; I have not stated the total effective sentence for the Commonwealth charges and perhaps I may check with you, with Ms Flynn, whether I should do so. I understand that I have complied with the law that there is no hiatus because the Commonwealth sentence starts before the State non-parole period finishes. There is a 10 month Commonwealth sentence overall but the total effective sentence would effectively be 8 months because the two months is concurrent with the State non-parole period.
75 MS PACE: Yes.
76 HER HONOUR: So if it is necessary for me to state, so I will say that the total effective sentence for the Commonwealth sentences is eight months.
77 MS FLYNN: I think Your Honour (indistinct) indicated that the total effective sentence for the Commonwealth charge is 10 months. At the period - the non parole or the period upon which the accused may be released it is increased by 8 months.
78 HER HONOUR: The total period?
79 MS FLYNN: Yes.
80 HER HONOUR: Yes.
81 MS FLYNN: But the total effective Commonwealth sentence is - - -
82 HER HONOUR: Is still 10 months.
83 MS FLYNN: And then your orders for concurrency and cumulation make it clear or it's been clear to me - - -
84 HER HONOUR: Good.
85 MS FLYNN: - - - in my marking of it that there will be an additional period of eight months at the expiry of the 12 months State non-parole period where the accused will remain in custody as there's been no recognisance release order made on the Commonwealth matters and Your Honour has referred to the Section 19(AC) where if Your Honour - - -
86 HER HONOUR: I've said AB, is that - - - ?
87 MS FLYNN: I think that may be for where the sentence is greater than three years but I'll check that.
88 PRISONER: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I'm finding it very difficult to hear that clearly.
89 HER HONOUR: Very well. Ms Flynn is just making sure that we have covered the appropriate matters for the Commonwealth aspect of the sentence and I am just checking the legislation about that where I've exercised my discretion not to impose a Recognisance Release Order. Yes, you are right, 19AB(3) refers to - or 19AB generally refers to sentences over three years, so 19AC is where it is not more than three years, you are quite right. So I will amend that to be exercising my discretion pursuant to - I will just check that it is sub-s.(3) again.
90 MS FLYNN: No it would be (4), Your Honour. Yes, 19AC(4).
91 HER HONOUR: Yes, (4), thank you very much and as you will see from the footnote in the reasons that I have handed down I have referred there to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal decision of Hancock, a recent decision about that.
92 MS FLYNN: Yes, Your Honour.
93 HER HONOUR: Yes, very well. Thank you very much, Ms Flynn.
94 MS FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honour
95 HER HONOUR: For the benefit of the parties generally, and I hope I am not going to be transgressing into areas where I might make a mistake, but it appears to me that this is the overall outcome: Mr Finnin has been in custody since 24 July 2009. He will have a State non-parole period up until 3 September 2014 approximately. That is 12 months on the minimum term from today. The end of the Commonwealth sentence and parole period is 3 February 2015 and these are approximate dates because of course there may be administrative deductions. The expiry date of the overall sentence is 3 July 2016 again, approximately, and if my calculations are correct, looking at the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal and the sentence I have imposed today, that is around about a total of seven years with a minimum of five years, seven months, give or take a few days. So that is not part of my sentence I suppose but it is part of my reasoning and it may provide some clarity. Yes, Ms Pace, anything you wish to add to that?
96 MS PACE: No, Your Honour.
97 HER HONOUR: Mr Marshall?
98 MR MARSHALL: Your Honour, just so I can try and put through my limited mind; as I understand it, Your Honour is intending for an extra five months to be served effectively as a non-parole period by the course of the Commonwealth offending, is that - - - ?
99 HER HONOUR: It is actually an extra eight months.
100 MR MARSHALL: It's just - Your Honour, I suppose there are two matters. The first that the approximate dates Your Honour gave were 3 September 2014 and 3 February 2015 which was five months.
101 HER HONOUR: 3 May, I beg your pardon.
102 MR MARSHALL: And that is consistent with the figures that I think Your Honour gave when we came before Your Honour last week which was a total effectively as I understood it of three months, which was to be a period of five months extra to be served by way of - - -
103 HER HONOUR: Yes. No, it is in fact 3 May I beg your pardon 2015 that the Commonwealth sentence ends and at that point, the State non-parole period having concluded, Mr Finnin will be eligible for parole.
104 MR MARSHALL: If Your Honour pleases.
105 HER HONOUR: Yes. All right, as I indicated, the Sex Offender Registration material will be forwarded to - to the prison from the court today and that will be provided, I anticipate, to you, Mr Finnin. If there are any queries then no doubt your lawyers will be able to assist you. Could I thank the parties for their assistance and I will adjourn till 9 o'clock on Friday.
- - -
4
0