Director of Public Prosecutions v Folau
[2022] VSC 514
•2 September 2022
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2020 0311
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Crown |
| v | |
| TORRIS FOLAU | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | LASRY J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING: | 7 July 2022 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 2 September 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Folau |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VSC 514 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Pleas of guilty to one count each of manslaughter, intentionally causing serious injury and home invasion – Spontaneous attacks on two strangers during home invasion – Deceased stabbed multiple times – Young adult offender - Accused aged 24 years at time of offending – Drug and alcohol fuelled offending.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr M. Rochford QC with Ms C. Foot | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr J. Desmond | Matthew White & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Torris Folau, on 23 March 2022, in this Court, you pleaded guilty before me to one charge each of home invasion, intentionally causing serious injury and manslaughter of Hashmat Nawabi. These charges relate to events that occurred on the evening of Saturday, 16 May 2020, when you, with a man by the name of Chris Segio, went to 14 Nolan Drive in Epping and entered the premises.
In March 2022, your trial had commenced. In relation to the death of Hashmat Nawabi, you had originally been charged with murder. A jury had been empanelled and it was partway through the prosecution’s opening address to the jury that you entered your pleas of guilty.
The prosecution had been prepared to accept your plea of guilty to the charge of manslaughter in lieu of the charge of murder. You pleaded guilty to that charge on the basis that you had committed an unlawful and dangerous act which caused the death of Mr Nawabi. For the purposes of sentencing you, it was agreed between the parties that your actions were performed without murderous intent, but nevertheless with an appreciation of the risk of serious injury. You will now be sentenced on that basis. I should say at the outset I regard your offending as very serious examples of each of these offences.
At the plea hearing on 7 July 2022, I heard an opening from the prosecutor, Mr Rochford QC, together with a statement describing the impact of your offending on the wife and family of the deceased man, Mr Hashmat Nawabi. I will return to that. I also heard submissions from Mr Desmond, of counsel, on your behalf on the sentence that should be imposed on you and a response to those submissions by Mr Rochford. It is now my responsibility to sentence you for these charges.
Maximum penalties
The maximum penalty for home invasion is 25 years’ imprisonment.[1] Home invasion is a category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). Under s 5(2H) of that Act, I must impose a custodial order for this offence unless one of the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of that subsection exists.
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 77A (3) (‘Crimes Act’).
The maximum penalty for intentionally causing serious injury is 20 years’ imprisonment.[2]
[2]Crimes Act s 16.
The maximum penalty for manslaughter applicable at the time you committed these offences was 20 years’ imprisonment.[3] As with home invasion, manslaughter is a category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act, and I must impose a custodial order for this offence unless one of the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of that subsection exist. In this case, neither party has argued that any such exception exists, and I will sentence you on that basis.
[3]Crimes Act s 5 (as in force on 16 May 2020).
Circumstances of the offending
Background
The Nolan Drive residence to which I have referred was a three bedroom home owned by Dominic Ciancio. Ciancio had the master bedroom closest to the front door. Nadim Ghattas and his partner Kelly Betts shared the back bedroom.
Throughout the day and early evening on 16 May 2020, various people came and went from the Nolan Drive residence. Ghattas had been at the house during the day and left at around 7.00pm. At that stage there were five people remaining in the home: Ciancio, Betts, the deceased, Mohamad and Paige Muray, who is a friend of Betts’. In the period of time immediately prior to the home invasion, the deceased and Mr Mohamad were in the lounge area. Mohamad was asleep on the lounge and the deceased was using his phone.
At some point after Ghattas had left, Dominic Ciancio was in his room when he heard a male yelling and screaming at the front door. It sounded like they were yelling out for Ghattas. Ciancio went to the front door and answered it. He described the person at the door being of Islander descent with a solid build and around 6’ 1’’ tall. This turned out to be you and Mr Ciancio told you that Ghattas was not home, before he returned to his room.
Just after 8.00pm, Alex Afifi, who was also acquainted with Ghattas, arrived at the residence via an Uber that had been arranged by Murray. Afifi had been at the house earlier that day. As Afifi was walking towards the house, he was approached by a male walking down the driveway of number 14. He described the male he saw as having dark skin, ‘like an Islander’, a bit taller than Afifi and wearing a cap. The male asked Afifi if he could score some drugs for him, or if Afifi knew where he could score.
Murray let Afifi inside the house and Afifi warned her that there were people out the front who were going to do a ‘run through’ if they did not get them drugs.
Betts stood in the lounge for a period of time and looked through the front blinds. She observed a male in his 20s of Islander appearance standing there. She asked his name and heard you say ‘Tika’ or ‘Taker’, and you told her he had been sent there for drugs. Murray was in the bedroom and overheard the conversation between you and Betts. Murray heard you say the name, ‘TK’. She also recalls Betts telling you that Nadim (Ghattas) was not there, and that you had said you would wait.
Murray also went to the front lounge at some point and looked outside. She again saw you, facing right up against the wall to the left of the front door. She phoned her partner, Brett Ward, to tell him what was happening. Ward said he was on his way and to call the police. This call was made at 8.30pm.
Home invasion
Murray retreated to the back bedroom, where she saw Betts on the phone. They looked around the room for something with which to defend themselves. Murray found a knife in a black sheath on the floor next to the desk and handed it, still in its sheath, to Betts. Betts locked the bedroom door and put the knife on the bed. The two women heard very loud banging from the direction of the front door.
You and Segio then entered the property by forcing the front door. You both made your way to the rear bedroom. Later, police examination indicated that the door to the bedroom was also forced open. You were the first to enter the bedroom, followed by Segio. Segio was wearing a mask which was covering the bottom half of his face.
Murray recalled that you were repeatedly yelling something like, ‘Where’s the stuff?’ as you approached Betts. Betts cowered and as she did so, she lifted her leg off the bed, exposing the knife. You grabbed the knife. Betts and Murray say you also grabbed Betts’ car keys, and Murray recalls you tried to grab her purse, but Betts snatched it away.
You and Segio then left the bedroom and made your way further into the house. Betts closed the door after you, walked out and could hear what sounded like fighting. Afifi had been in the lounge area when he heard a thump on the door, which sounded like a kick. He woke Mohamad when he heard Betts screaming. Afifi recalled that he, Mohamad and the deceased man Nawabi got up, and he told them they needed to hide or run. Afifi then escaped the property via the back door and hid in a neighbouring backyard for about 5-10 minutes.
Intentionally Causing Serious Injury
After leaving the bedroom, you and Segio separated and you made your way into the living room area where you assaulted Ahad Mohamad, striking him to the left side of his head. Mohamad recalls being in the living room asleep on the couch, waking up and seeing two men. He was hit hard in the head with something, and his head was bleeding. He did not see who hit him or what he was hit with. He recalls being seated on the couch when he was hit. He does not recall seeing the deceased or what happened to him. Mohamad said the incident happened very quickly and his memory of it is not good. He could not recall anything about yourself or Segio, except that one of you had dark skin and a bandana on his face.
Manslaughter
At some point you also attacked the deceased, stabbing him a number of times to the head and neck region with the knife that you had taken into your possession. The wounds you inflicted caused his death.
Aftermath
You and Segio then left the house. Cianco emerged from his room when he heard some screaming. As he headed to the kitchen, he saw two men in a hurry exiting the house. He said it appeared as though they had a knife or a bar, but he could not say which person was holding the item, because it was too quick.
Betts and Murray ran out of the house and up Nolan Drive. Betts yelled at Ward, who had just arrived in his vehicle. Murray stopped and turned back towards the house. She saw the two Islander boys run out of the house towards a car parked on the side of the road. They got into the car and drove off.
Betts and Murray then returned to the house. Betts came across Mohamad, who was holding a t-shirt to his head and was bleeding a lot. Murray took Mohamad to the bathroom and called triple zero for assistance at 8.34pm, but hung up as it was taking too long to get through. She then called Ward (at 8.35pm) and told him to come back. When Ward returned, Murray and Ward took Mohamad to the hospital. At that stage, they were not aware of what had happened to the deceased.
After Afifi heard the sound of cars flying down the street, he returned to the house and Betts let him back in. Betts told him that Mohamad had been taken to the hospital. Afifi then went to the living room, turned on the light and saw the deceased slumped against a wall in the corner of the living room. There was blood on the deceased, most of it on his left side, and blood on the windowsill.
Betts called triple zero and started cardiopulmonary resuscitation (‘CPR’) on the deceased. Cianco later assisted in the CPR efforts.
Paramedics arrived at 8.49pm and observed that the deceased had lacerations to the face and neck, but noted these were no longer actively bleeding. The deceased was dragged into the middle of the room where resuscitation efforts were continued. These efforts stopped at 9.17pm.
Serious injury to Ahad Mohamad
Mohamad presented to the Northern Hospital with a large laceration to his forehead, which was actively bleeding. On initial assessment at 9.00pm, he was found to be confused, but making sense. Within a couple of hours, however, his conscious state began to reduce and he was intubated. A CT scan was conducted, which showed that he had suffered a significant head injury. Mohamad was transferred to the Royal Melbourne Hospital for further management.
At the hospital he underwent further investigations and was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury with:
(a) left sided skull fracture with an overlying open wound;
(b) left sided acute subdural haematoma causing rightwards midline shift; and
(c) left frontal intraparenchymal haematoma with surrounding swelling.
Upon arrival at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Mohamad was admitted to the intensive care unit for monitoring and treatment of raised intracranial pressure. His condition was managed conservatively (without surgery) and he was eventually extubated. After 10 days at the hospital, Mohamad was transferred to a rehabilitation facility.
The mechanism of the injury was consistent with blunt head trauma.
Autopsy of Hashmat Nawabi
An autopsy was conducted on the deceased by forensic pathologist Dr Heinrich Bouwer, commencing at 10.00am on 17 May 2020. The cause of death was found to be stab wounds to the head and neck. These injuries consisted of:
(a) a stab wound to the right temple, three centimetres in length and extending 10 centimetres into the head, through the skull and to the brain, severing the brainstem and extending into the cerebellum. This wound could be immediately fatal, because it completely severed the brainstem;
(b) a gaping stab wound to the left jaw, extending across the neck through the laryngopharynx to a depth of at least 10 centimetres which incised the left thyroid cartilage but did not cause injury to the major vessels of the neck; and
(c) a stab wound to the left orbital ridge, extending into the supraorbital soft tissue, which collapsed the eyeball.
Although it is difficult for forensic pathologists to attribute the degree of force required to inflict stab wounds, in this case Dr Bouwer said that the infliction of the wound to the temple involved moderate to severe force, in part because the wound involved the knife cutting through the bone.
In addition to these injuries, the pathologist also found several superficial stab/incised injuries about the head along with incised injuries on the right upper arm and wrist, consistent with defensive-type injuries, and a fracture to the left cheekbone.
Police investigation
First responding police arrived at the address at approximately 8.51pm on 16 May 2020, a short time after the paramedics. A crime scene was established, and later expanded.
The front door showed evidence of damage and the there was a hole in the plaster wall in line with the door handle and the top of the door. There was further damage to the lock to the door to the third bedroom, along with paint and wood fragments from the door frame on the floor. Areas of bloodstaining were found at various points in the house. A black knife sheath with the words “USA Sabre” embossed onto it was found on an ottoman in the meals area (located next to the living room).
Police located a clock inside Ciancio’s bedroom which contained a camera that was recording sound and vision at the time of the incident. A number of clips were obtained from the SD card within the clock, providing audio prior to, at the time of, and after the offending (the vision being limited to the interior of the bedroom).
CCTV was obtained from a number of locations in neighbouring streets and suburbs showing a vehicle, subsequently identified as a blue 2015-model Holden Commodore (registration 1RO-7XR), being driven by you. The vehicle is owned by your brother, Tony Keresoma.
CCTV was obtained from 21 Nolan Drive, which is almost adjacent to number 14. This footage showed a vehicle, which the prosecution say is the Commodore, arriving at Nolan Drive with its headlights off at approximately 8.11pm and parking outside number 19. The footage showed a lit item being thrown from the passenger side window at approximately 8.20pm. The item landed on the front nature strip of number 19; at the same location a cigarette butt was later found by investigators.
The CCTV footage also depicts two people coming and going from the vehicle several times. At approximately 8.35pm, two people can be seen running to the vehicle from the direction of number 14 and getting into the vehicle before the vehicle is driven off quickly, again without headlights operating.
CCTV footage from numerous CCTV cameras was obtained, which the prosecution say enabled the vehicle to be tracked from the scene through Epping, Epping North, Wollert, Craigieburn and Mickleham. The vehicle’s one working headlight (the right) was only turned on when the vehicle had reached Arcadia Avenue, Mickleham.
You had been associated with the Holden Commodore vehicle prior to the night of the offending. On 10 May 2020, police spoke to the occupants of the Commodore. You were the driver, and you identified yourself as ‘Torris Folau’, giving police your date of birth.
Police attended the Maybury Drive property on 28 May 2020 in an attempt to locate you (but you were not present), and to execute a search warrant. Upon execution of the warrant, police took photographs of a number of clothing items including a cap which matched that worn by “TK Chapo” in the Facebook profile photograph.
While at the address, police had a discussion with Tony Keresoma in relation to the whereabouts of the Commodore. Keresoma directed police to 15 Ryan Street, Reservoir, where the Commodore was seized. It was later processed by a crime scene examiner.
The fingerprints of both you and Segio were found inside the Commodore. Segio’s prints were on the inside trim of the front passenger door, and yours were on the rear vision mirror, and a water bottle found in the front passenger door pocket.
Processing of the vehicle revealed it had an ‘infotainment’ system. The system was downloaded. The system included details of calls made via the car’s system. At 5.10pm on 16 May 2020, an outgoing call was placed through the system to [phone number redacted], which is the number Segio identified as his number during a later interview with police.
An Oppo brand mobile phone was located wedged between the front passenger seat and centre console of the Commodore. The phone utilised a SIM card with the telephone number [reacted]. The phone was analysed and contained a number of indicators of it having been used by you, including photographs stored on the phone, including the photographs found on the ‘TK Chapo’ Facebook profile.
DNA evidence
The interior of the Commodore’s cabin was tested for possible blood. A number of areas that were identified as positive to a screening test for blood were swabbed, and the swabs tested for DNA. Relevantly:
(a) a sample taken from the driver’s door armrest revealed four contributors to the DNA. The DNA evidence was 75,000 times more likely if the deceased was a contributor and 100 billion times more likely if you were a contributor;
(b) a sample taken from the driver’s seat back revealed four contributors to the DNA. The DNA evidence was 2.9 billion times more likely if the deceased was a contributor;
(c) a sample taken from the rear of the front passenger seat revealed three contributors. The DNA evidence was 160 thousand times more likely if the deceased was one of the contributors and 100 billion times more likely if you were a contributor.
The DNA evidence in relation to these samples either excluded Segio as a contributor to the DNA, or the evidence was more likely if he was not a contributor.
The cigarette butt found outside 19 Nolan Drive was also tested for DNA. That testing revealed two contributors to DNA located on the end of the butt. The DNA evidence was 100 billion times more likely if you and Segio were the contributors to that DNA.
Arrest and interview
On 17 May 2020, the day after the offending, you and some of your family members had attended the home of your aunt, [redacted], in Melton West. While there, you asked your aunt whether you could stay with her for a while, and she agreed.
On 28 May 2020, after attending Maybury Drive, police attended the Melton West address and found you asleep in a bedroom. You were arrested and a search warrant was executed at the address. Police photographed various items in the bedroom in which you were found.
You were then transported to the City West police complex where you were interviewed, and you exercised your right not to answer the questions you were asked.
Segio was arrested the same day and provided police with an account of having attended the Nolan Drive house with a mate he had met that night and whose name he could not remember. Segio went there expecting the two of you would rob the house. He explained where the two of you had gone inside the house, saying that you had split up when inside. He denied assaulting any of the residents. He told police he had been driven to the scene by his mate and later made his way back to where he lived. He burnt the clothing he was wearing, because while he was inside the house, he had seen the deceased next to the kitchen sitting down with his eyes closed, and he thought he was dead. He led police to the location in Wollert where he had done so and burnt clothing remnants were collected.
Victim impact statements
At the plea hearing, the Court heard from Sonia Wardak, the widow of the deceased man, who read her victim impact statement. Ms Wardak described the devastating and extensive impacts your offending has had on herself, their child and families. In a most articulate and compelling description, she made clear that the terrible effects of what you did will be with her for life and the Court assures her that her pain and sorrow has been heard.
After the completion of the plea hearing, I was provided with a typed document apparently prepared by you which represented your apology for what you have done in committing these offences. The matter was mentioned before me and I was asked whether I would permit you to read that document to the Court when the sentence was to be imposed on you. I indicated to your counsel that I would not agree to you doing so, unless it was on oath from the witness box and you were available to be cross examined about it. That did not occur.
Only a day or two before this hearing, I was advised that Ms Wardak had filed a supplementary victim impact statement which, in truth, is a response to your apology. She also wished to read it aloud to the Court. I have indicated that I do not want that occur and I do not think it would be appropriate. I have read the document and, subject to parts of it which I do not think are admissible and in conjunction with the original victim impact statement, I have taken it into account in deciding the sentence to be imposed on you.
Personal circumstances and criminal history
In relation to your background, apart from what your counsel has told me, the Court has been provided with a report from forensic psychiatrist Dr Kevin Ong. That report includes a description of your personal background.
You were born on 12 January 1996 and are 26 years of age and of Samoan background. Your parents continue to support you and were present in Court during the hearing of your plea. Your education finished part way through year 12 after which you had factory jobs. By this stage you had a drug problem and your work performance deteriorated.
You were 24 when you committed these offences. By then you had a well-established drug and alcohol problem. You began with cannabis at the age of 17 and progressed to methamphetamine.
You have maintained a relationship with Kayla Cardamone, and she has supported you also and provided a character reference for you. You maintain contact with her whilst you are in custody.
Custody has been difficult for you, and you have been attacked during that time. In December 2021 you were stabbed and quite seriously injured.
Your criminal history is limited, which is not particularly surprising given your age. In 2017 you were found guilty of two counts of recklessly causing injury, and one count each of unlawful assault and affray. You were sentenced to an adjourned undertaking for 12 months, without conviction.
Dr Ong concluded that you had developed a substance use disorder, but you are not suffering from any mental illness. You do not have a complete memory of this offending and were likely intoxicated with alcohol and withdrawing from methamphetamine at the time.
Defence submissions
Circumstances and gravity of the offending
Mr Desmond, on your behalf, submitted that your decision to use the knife was a spontaneous one, evidenced by the fact that you were not armed when you entered the residence, but took possession of the knife from Betts. Mr Desmond also noted that your offending was of short duration, though he conceded that the assault on the deceased involved the infliction of multiple and severe stab wounds to the head and neck. I frankly do not think the duration is, in any sense, a mitigatory factor.
Mr Desmond also noted that you had no prior relationship with your victims.
Concurrency
Your counsel submitted that there should be significant concurrency across the three offences for which you stand to be sentenced.
Plea of guilty and remorse
Mr Desmond accepted that you entered pleas of guilty at a late stage. However, even a late plea has significant utilitarian value. Counsel emphasised in particular that your plea has avoided a high-stress trial and cross examination of many witnesses, which would no doubt be a difficult experience for all the participants.
Since the plea I have been provided with a typed letter apparently prepared by you to which I have already referred. The letter seeks forgiveness and apologises to the families of both your victims. I have indicated that I would take that letter into account as being some evidence of remorse.
Conditions in custody and pleas during the Covid-19 pandemic
I acknowledge the utilitarian value of your plea, late as it was. It is now established that you are entitled to gain a sentencing benefit for having not required there to be a trial with all the stress that would have involved for all concerned, particularly for the family of the deceased man and also given present and past circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Mental and physical health, drug use
As I earlier mentioned, in his report dated 10 June 2022, Dr Ong states that you developed a substance use disorder, using mainly alcohol, cannabis and methamphetamine during your late teenage years and escalating throughout your early twenties. Dr Ong speculates that you were likely to have been heavily intoxicated with alcohol and withdrawing from methamphetamine at the time of your offending. As your intoxication was self-induced, this does nothing to limit your moral culpability.
You have no history of mental illness beyond intermittent depression when you have at times been denied access to your four-year-old daughter.
As I briefly mentioned earlier, whilst in prison, you suffered an assault and stabbing on 16 December 2021. Your wounds were superficial and you were discharged on 18 December 2021 with conservative management and wound care.
Prospects of rehabilitation and remorse
Mr Desmond submitted that overall, you are a young adult offender and that your rehabilitation should play a predominant role in sentencing.
Dr Ong noted that you expressed remorse to him for your offending and acknowledged the detrimental impact that your substance abuse has had on your behaviour.
Prosecution submissions
Mr Rochford QC submitted that general deterrence is an important consideration in this case. Mr Rochford also argued that specific deterrence is also relevant given your prior criminal history to which I have referred, which are also violent in nature.
With regards to concurrency, Mr Rochford QC submitted that although there should be some concurrency, it should not be significant. To a degree I respectfully disagree.
The prosecutor also submitted that while your plea has utilitarian value, it is not of significant value given the late hour of your plea. Mr Rochford QC emphasised the fact that trial preparations had been set and your trial was in fact already underway. Nevertheless, the avoidance of the trial is of some significance.
Analysis and Conclusion
These were aggressive, uncontrolled and violent offences you committed, and the victims were people you did not know. Your actions were gratuitous and are to be condemned. The offence of manslaughter, in particular, was very serious and at the high end for that offence. To underline that, I refer to post-mortem report of Dr Bouwer:[4]
At autopsy, there was a stab wound on the right temple which extended through the squamous temporal bone, right temporal lobe and transected the brainstem and basilar artery at the level of the pons and extended into the left cerebellar hemisphere up to a depth of approximately 10 cm. This was accompanied with subarachnoid haemorrhage. This type of injury could be considered immediately fatal given that the brainstem was completely severed. In addition, there was a stab wound at the left jaw angle which perforated the throat structures without causing injury to the major vessels of the neck.
[4]Report dated 11 August 2020, Depositions 1646.
In addition, you inflicted serious injuries on Ahad Mohamed and apart from a significant period of hospitalisation, he needed continued rehabilitation. These offences are of the kind that frighten the public – invading a home, inflicting severe and then fatal violence.
You have, although limited, prior convictions for offences of violence and so apart from denunciation and punishment, specific and general deterrence are significant sentencing factors.
You have expressed remorse for what you did. However, I do not regard remorse as a major reason for your plea of guilty. Your remorse was expressed to Dr Ong and in the letter to which I have referred, though that also came quite late in the process. In it you ask for forgiveness. You also acknowledge your problem with drugs and alcohol. You claim that you have set goals for yourself, and you pledge to live a better life after your release.
Your prospects for rehabilitation are, at best, reasonable and you appear to have family support. Your future will be governed by your ability to deal with your substance abuse issues. If you fail, your life will be effectively ruined.
I have also taken into account the conditions in custody that you have endured during the pandemic. The difficulties created for prisoners during the pandemic were significant and onerous. I again acknowledge the utilitarian value of your plea of guilty.
In all the circumstances the sentence that I will impose upon you is as follows:
(a) on Charge 1, the charge of home invasion, you will be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of five years;
(b) on Charge 2, the charge of intentionally causing serious injury to Ahad Mohamad, you will be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of seven years;
(c) on Charge 3, the charge of manslaughter of Hashmat Nawabi, you will be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of twelve years.
I direct that one year of the sentence on Charge 1 and three years of the sentence on Charge 2 be served cumulatively with the sentence on Charge 3. This results in a total effective term of 16 years’ imprisonment.
I direct that you are to serve a minimum period of 12 years’ imprisonment before you become eligible to apply to be released on parole.
I declare that your pre-sentence detention is 827 days, not including this day, and I direct that period be reckoned as time already served pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991.
I indicate, pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, that had you not pleaded guilty to the charges which have been brought against you, but been found guilty by a jury, then the total effective sentence that I would have imposed upon you would have been a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of 16 years’ imprisonment.
Ancillary orders
I will make the forfeiture and disposal orders sought, pursuant to sections 33(1) and 78(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997 (Vic), respectively.
0
0
0