Director of Public Prosecutions v Ganly
[2012] VCC 972
•6 July 2012
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR-12-00876
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PETER GANLY |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LACAVA | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 30 May 2012 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 6 July 2012 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v. Ganly | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 972 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: Pleas of guilty to 1 charge of armed robbery and dishonesty offences - Offender drug affected with long criminal history.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms J. Fayman | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr P. Tobin |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Peter Damian Ganly, on 30 May 2012 you pleaded guilty to each charge contained in two separate indictments. You also pleaded guilty to two summary offences which you consented to have heard in this court.
2 Indictment B1272551 contained one charge of armed robbery which occurred at South Yarra on 3 October 2011.
3 Indictment B1272551.1 contained two charges of theft which occurred respectively on 19th March and 2nd October 2011 and one charge of criminal damage which occurred at the same time as the second charge of theft.
4 At the time that you pleaded guilty to these charges you also admitted a lengthy prior criminal history.
5 In passing sentence upon you I must have regard to the maximum sentence for each offence. The maximum sentence for armed robbery is 25 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for theft is 10 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for criminal damage is 10 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for possessing a controlled weapon is imprisonment for one year. The maximum penalty for possession of an article for use in the course of a theft is 2 years imprisonment.
6 The circumstances of your offending are summarised in a prosecution opening which was tendered and marked as exhibit A. It was read in open court by the learned prosecutor Mr Lawson and accepted by your counsel Mr Thomas as forming a proper basis upon which I can proceed to sentence you for this offending. It is not necessary that I repeat that which is contained in the prosecution opening except in summary form.
7 Your offending in Indictment B1272551.1 preceded that in indictment B1272551.
8 On 19 March 2011 at 2.15pm you entered a fruit shop in Mentone. Whilst the cash register was unattended you manipulated the lock and stole $200.00. You left the store but were soon apprehended. You made full admissions to staff and police who attended soon after. (Charge 1)
9 The circumstances giving rise to the first summary charge also occurred on 19 March 2011. At the time of the commission of the indictable theft charge you were found to be in possession of a controlled weapon without lawful excuse. That was described in an agreed summary as being a yellow and black box cutter. (the first summary charge)
10 On 2 October 2011 at 6.00pm you attended at the Coles Supermarket in Oakleigh. Within the supermarket there is a section devoted to the sale of mobile phones. At the time this section was closed and unattended. Using a pair of scissors you broke into a locked plastic display cabinet, damaging it in the process (charge 3) and stole a mobile phone from within the cabinet (charge 2). Your action activated an alarm and you were soon apprehended by Coles staff who found the mobile phone and scissors on you. The mobile phone was valued at $679.00 and there was approximately $200.00 damage caused to the display cabinet.
11 Police attended the supermarket. You were arrested and interviewed where you made partial admissions. You were released on bail.
12 The following day at about 3.15pm you travelled from Moorabbin to South Yarra by train. You walked along Chapel St South Yarra for no particular purpose.
13 You entered the Prahran Central complex and entered the Prahran Lotto business operated by Andrew & Susan Wong. You browsed through lotto forms. Whilst Mrs Wong was alone in the shop you produced a 20cm pair of scissors and demanded she empty the till and hand over the cash. Fearful of you Mrs Wong stepped back whereupon you reached over the counter and opened the till which had little cash in it. You came around the counter and noticed a second till which you opened and emptied.
14 You filled your pockets with cash and decamped but were apprehended by police about 15 minutes later in possession of the scissors and the cash. You were arrested and made full admissions except you said you did not produce the scissors in the presence of Mrs Wong. (Charge 1 Indictment B1272551).
15 The circumstances giving rise to the second summary charge also occurred on 2 October 2011. After the theft on that day you were found to be in possession of a small pair of scissors for use in the course of a theft.
16 Your offending occurred whilst you were drug affected. None of your offences was planned. In my view each offence was a spontaneous action according to the circumstances as you found yourself in at the particular time of each offence. Each of the thefts was in my view at a relatively low level as was the criminal damage charge which was in reality part and parcel of the theft of the mobile phone. The circumstances of the armed robbery in my view put it towards the lower end for that kind of offending. True it is that Mrs Wong was alone when you made your move and you put her in fear, but apart from having in your possession a small pair of scissors there is not evidence you threatened to use them as a weapon on Mrs Wong. In passing sentence upon you I have taken these matters into account.
17 In passing sentence upon you I take into account as I must the fact that you have pleaded guilty to these charges and the time at which you did so. In your case it is not in contention that you indicated your intention to plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity. You have thus saved the court and the community the time and costs of at least three trials and possibly two summary hearings and you have saved those persons involved as the victims in your offending of the need to give evidence against you. That is to your credit. In my view you are entitled to and will receive a reduction in your sentence because of your pleas of guilty for these offences. In addition I accept that your pleas of guilty signify genuine remorse on your part for your offending.
18 There were no victim impact statements tendered in evidence by the prosecution.
19 When you pleaded guilty you also admitted your prior criminal history which in your case is significant. You were born on 7 April 1978. The prior criminal history admitted by you extends for some 36 typed A-4 pages. It records many prior convictions from 33 court appearances spanning some 16 years. Your first recorded conviction for theft and burglary offences was at the Frankston Magistrates’ Court on 6 August 1996 aged 18. You were convicted and placed on a Community Based Order.
20 Two months later you were convicted of similar offending at the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court. One conviction recorded at that time was use heroin. From that point on there are recorded against you convictions for theft, dishonesty and drug offences on a regular basis, at times separated only by short periods sometimes of only a few days, often by only a few weeks or a couple of months. Judging from your recorded criminal history, by the time you reached the age of 20 years you were a full-time heroin addict.
21 Up until 1998 the courts before which you had appeared had imposed dispositions which appear to have been designed to assist you to rehabilitate yourself. You have been given Community Based Orders, and incarceration in Youth Training Centres. Up until March of 2000 all of your court appearances have been in the Magistrates’ Court.
22 On 14 March 2000 you were convicted in this court of attempted armed robbery and theft for which you received a term of imprisonment with a non parole period of 6 months. After your release the records show you continued to re-offend. You continued also to receive dispositions in the form of terms of imprisonment.
23 On 2 March 2004 you again appeared before this court and were convicted of intentionally cause injury, affray and recklessly cause injury. You received a total effective sentence of two and a half years with a non parole period of 12 months. It would appear from your criminal record that upon release you continued to re-offend in a similar way. Your criminal record is littered with convictions for dishonesty offences.
24 On 16 March 2010 you were convicted at the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court of 13 charges of theft and shop stealing. You received an aggregate sentence to be imprisoned for 10 months to be served by way of a drug treatment order administered by the Dandenong Drug Court. Unfortunately the history shows you breached the orders made and you were subsequently dealt with for breach. The offending here in charge 1 on indictment B1272551.1 occurred 10 days before you again appeared in the Dandenong Magistrates Court for similar offences.
25 You thus have a lengthy criminal history for similar offending. If there is anything to be gained by analysis of your past offending it is that it is almost entirely offending of dishonesty. As I have noted in March 2000 you were convicted of attempted armed robbery but you have not been convicted of a like offence since then until now. Also your past history is not significant for offending involving violence save for the convictions in March 2004.
26 Your past record of offending makes this a difficult sentencing task if one is to search for some disposition which will assist you and importantly the community by bringing about your rehabilitation. It is necessary, as it is in most cases to go to your background circumstances.
27 Mr Thomas relied upon a number of psychological and other court reports that have been prepared in relation to you.
28 I admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1, a psychiatric report from Dr Anthony Cidoni. In that report Dr Cidoni set out some detail of your background which is short and not in contention as follows:
29 "Relevant background. Mr Ganly is a 33 year old single gentleman previously living with his aunt. He has been in custody since 28 September 2011. He was out of custody for three days before the current offences and incarceration. His parents separated before he was born. Both his parents were heavy drinkers. He and his mother moved frequently during his childhood. He went to eleven primary schools. There were no developmental difficulties or abuse reported.
30 His mother had re-partnered when he was aged nine and he had a half sister from this relationship. When he was aged 15 his mother suicided by hanging and he and his sister witnessed this event. He had significant behavioural problems at school. He had academic difficulties. He was never diagnosed with a learning disability. He left after completing Year 9. He then went on to complete part of a cabinet making apprenticeship. He has done some process factory work. He has also worked with his father doing tree removal and lawn mowing. Mr Ganly has had no significant relationships.
31 Substance use history. Mr Ganly has a significant substance use history. He had some experimentation prior to his mother's death when he was aged 15. After that he had significant heroin and amphetamine use. He has had some periods of residential detoxification. In the seven months out of custody between August 2010 and March 2011 he was using cannabis, several pipes per week, Xanax and Alprazolam, and benzodiazepines, several tablets once a fortnight, heroin use of .2 to .3 grams per week and periodic use of amphetamines.
32 In the three days on his most recent release from custody he used significant amounts of Clonazepam, a benzodiazepine including two small bottles of 1.5 grams of heroin on the day of the offences."
33 Dr Cidoni opined as follows noting that you would benefit greatly from ongoing psychological support out of prison which has not been provided to you in the past. He opined and made these recommendations at p.3 of his report.
34 "Opinion and recommendations.
35 1. Mr Ganly suffers from very significant mental health difficulties. The loss of his mother including witnessing of her suicide has had a profound impact leading to significant substance abuse and distress.
36 2. His history is consistent with dysthymic disorder or chronic depression. He has associated anxiety and panic.
37 3. He has also suffered from psychotic symptoms. It is difficult whether these reflect grief in a post traumatic reaction to his mother's death, a response to the cannabis and amphetamine use or an independent psychotic illness such as schizophrenia.
38 4. I would agree with Mr Newton that Mr Ganly has some anti-social traits with a tendency towards impulsivity, recklessness and lacking thought into the consequences of his actions, including the impact on others.
39 5. It is important that Mr Ganly has ongoing medication and monitoring of his mental state. Grief counselling would be of particular benefit.
40 6. Mr Ganly has also suffered from significant polysubstance abuse which may be viewed at least in part as an attempt to self medicate for his conditions.
41 7. Mr Ganly requires ongoing support and supervision from specialist substance abuse services.
42 8 I believe a significant factor in the offending is Mr Ganly's very low self esteem and lack of concern for what happens to him and reverting to previous patterns of behavior and in a sense the structure of imprisonment as a way of trying to cope with life.
43 9. Another factor is the excessive use of Clonazepam, a benzodiazepine, at the time of the offending. It is likely that this substance in excess would cause significant disinhibition of behavior and impairment of judgment.
44 10. I believe that Mr Ganly would significantly benefit from regular psychological input to assist him to improve his self esteem. I note that this would likely be quite difficult to obtain in prison.
45 11. It is also of concern that Mr Ganly has not received consistent mental health follow up whilst out of custody and it would be very important on his next release for him to receive consistent mental health treatment to reduce the chances of him re-offending.
46 12. It is of course difficult to foresee a pathway through by which Mr Ganly can overturn long established patterns of substance use and offending behavior. In my opinion consistent psychological treatment has not been attempted. This offers some hope for change."
47 Mr Thomas also relied upon a psychological report of Patrick Newton psychologist prepared in November 2003. At that time under the heading of “Rehabilitation" on page 3 Mr Newton opined as follows.
48 "Rehabilitation. Mr Ganly has participated in a number of rehabilitative programs in an effort to bring his drug use under control. These have included both residential detoxification programs (generally of only short duration) and medical treatment with opiate substitutes. It is noteworthy that while Mr Ganly has received some drug education as part of his treatment he has reportedly received no personal counselling at any time.
49 In particular he has received no treatment to address either his unresolved grief or his chronic social alienation as his treatment has lacked any focus on the psychological and social factors which underpinned his drug problem, it is hardly surprising that Mr Ganly has uniformly relapsed to drug use within a brief period of his discharge."
50 He added under the heading "Prognosis" as follows. "Prognosis. The severity of Mr Ganly's problems mitigates against flippant optimism. If he is to have any prospect for rehabilitation it is imperative that the causes of his offending be addressed effectively. Based on my assessment I would delineate three key factors which have led to Mr Ganly's problems:
51 His chronic history of drug abuse and dependence. The social alienation which he has experienced and his ongoing unresolved grief at his mother's death. Only in the context of a comprehensive program which addresses each of these factors would Mr Ganly have a positive prospect for rehabilitation.
52 The treatment program outlined above is designed to provide an opportunity for such rehabilitation to occur. Given Mr Ganly's previous difficulties it is essential that he not only be supported but also be supervised closely upon his eventual release into the community. Regardless of the disposition which Mr Ganly may obtain on this occasion it is respectfully suggested that such a program be implemented upon his eventual release.
53 From the perspective of rehabilitation which is acknowledged to be only one matter of relevance to the court's decision-making it would be my respectful suggestion that Mr Ganly would benefit from a disposition which included a relatively lengthy period of supervision in the community. Such a disposition would ensure that he is not only effectively supervised upon his release to the community but also receives appropriate intervention to assist him in addressing his considerable problems.
54 Given his intelligence, his resilience, his current abstinence from drugs and his reported motivation for treatment there are grounds for a guarded optimism that with sufficiently intense intervention Mr Ganly has potential to address his difficulties."
55 Also tendered was a report prepared by Francis Coghlan prepared for your appearance before the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court in March 2010. That was the report that recommended a disposition in the form of a drug treatment order. In passing sentence I have taken this report into account.
56 These reports all bring out that as a child you were exposed to patterns of substance abuse. You began to smoke cannabis aged 13. By age 15 you had turned to amphetamines and by aged 16 you were a heroin addict. In your late teenage years you witnessed your mother suicide which triggered in you a profound grief reaction. Mr Thomas asked me to take into account that you embarked on a path to drug addiction when you were not of an age of rational choice and the choices that you have made have in many ways been guided by your experiences in early life particularly witnessing your mother suicide. I accept that submission as having been established by the evidence before me.
57 I now turn to the purposes for which sentence should be imposed in your case, and what is an appropriate sentence to be imposed. There are further sentencing principles that are important to note. I will deal briefly with each of these.
58 Firstly, general deterrence. Any sentence I impose on you must send a clear message to those in the community who might be of the inclination to offend, as you have, that if they do so and they are detected, punishment from the Court will be condign. Accordingly, in cases such as this, applications of the principle of general deterrence will be a very important factor in sentencing, and I have acted accordingly in imposing sentence upon you. However, in arriving at an overall effective sentence I have moderated application of general deterrence for reasons I shall shortly explain.
59 Secondly, specific deterrence must remain a critical objective in the sentencing disposition for you. Steps need to be taken to ensure you do not re-offend. The sentences I will impose attempt to achieve that goal.
60 Thirdly, the protection of the community from you and the likelihood of your re-offending is of paramount importance in crimes of this type. Put bluntly, the community is tired of having its citizens held up and threatened by drug addicts armed with weapons of any kind. It is also tired of its citizens being the victims of theft by drug addicts.
61 Fourthly, rehabilitation. In your case, this is critical. In my view, it is in the public interest that every step be taken to bring about your full rehabilitation. Drug addiction provides no justification for the purposes of sentencing. Drug addiction is not of itself a factor that necessarily calls for a lesser sentence than would otherwise be appropriate. The sentence to be fixed has to reflect the seriousness of the crime. See R v. Koumis & Ors [2008] VSCA 84 at paragraph 52 and following:
52. In the present cases each applicant’s drug addiction was directly linked to the commission of the crime. Each of the applicants on their plea had sought to make a case for their drug addiction to be considered as a mitigating circumstance. In all but one case the applicants came from a dysfunctional family background and had become involved in drug taking from a young age. The common submission advanced was that by not treating each of the applicant’s trafficking as at the lowest level for the sole motive of satisfying their drug addiction, his Honour had failed to properly reflect each applicant’s moral culpability. In each applicant’s case it was also urged that their addiction had a particular significance in assessing their prospects for rehabilitation.
53. A number of general propositions may be stated about the relevance of addiction to the question of moral culpability and whether it should be viewed as a mitigating circumstance for the purposes of sentence. Drug addiction provides no justification for the purposes of sentencing. Drug addiction is not of itself a factor that necessarily calls for a lesser sentence than would otherwise be appropriate. The sentence to be fixed has to reflect the seriousness of the crime of drug trafficking in substantial quantities of a drug of dependence. Denunciation and general deterrence assume particular importance as the purposes to be effectuated by the sentence. Generally speaking, addiction and any consequential impairment of judgment, will not have any significant mitigatory effect upon those sentencing considerations.
54. But sentencing being a discretionary decision is to be made by reference to the circumstances of the particular case, it would be erroneous to conclude that drug addiction will always be relevant in the same way to the fixing of a sentence and must always produce the same sentencing consequences. There may be circumstances in which the offender’s drug addiction will have a particular bearing upon moral culpability. It will usually be of relevance to the question of rehabilitation.”
62 The community has an interest in bringing about rehabilitation of drug users who offend and for this reason often a sentencing court will have regard to the circumstances that lead to the addiction, whether it can be treated and what (if any) steps have been taken by the offender to address his or her addiction in framing an appropriate sentence. See R v. Lacey [2007] VSCA 197 which was referred to by the Court of Appeal in Koumis, where the court quoted from the judgment of McGarvie J in R v. Nagy, in which His Honour said:
"The law does not preclude a Court in sentencing this applicant from regarding it as an important factor that he and his de facto wife were heroin addicts, and that the crimes were committed with a view to obtaining heroin and money to enable their addiction to be satisfied. Such a factor has been regarded as important in the determination of a person's criminality."
63 See also R v. Bouchard, (1996) 84 A CrimR499, 501 (Winneke P and Hampel AJA agreeing) where Callaway JA said, inter alia:
It may be conceded that it is a relevant and sometimes very significant factor in sentencing that an offender engaged in trafficking, especially at "street level", in order to gain the wherewithal to satisfy his own craving, rather than a non-user acting purely for reasons of greed and in callous disregard of the grave harm that offences does to its victims.
64 In R v. McKee [2003] 138 A. Crim. R 88 where at paragraph 13 per Buchanan JA and at paragraph 21 Vincent JA made similar statements as follows:
[13] The extent to which a decision to experiment with drugs is freely made, in my view, bears upon the moral culpability of the offender who commits a crime as a consequence of addiction to drugs. Age is relevant to the question ... I would add that in the case of adults, despair and low self-regard may also play a significant part in the decision to use drugs and that condition may be the result of social or economic disadvantage, poor education or emotional or physical abuse. An addiction to heroin may also bear upon the question ofrehabilitation, where the prospects of success will often depend upon the likelihood of the addiction being successfully treated. In my view, a sentencing judge may have regard to the circumstances which led to an addiction that caused the commission of the offence and to whether the addiction has continued or is being treated in deciding upon a sentence appropriately tailored to the personal circumstances of the offender.
and
[21] Counsel for the appellants placed considerable reliance on the fact that both of their clients had developed an addiction to drugs. Each did so at a relatively early age and each almost certainly became so enmeshed in circumstances of the deprivation, abuse or disadvantage to which she had been subjected as a young person. I accept that such experiences anddrug addictionitself are capable of producing serious corrosive effects that may continue to influence the conduct of the person concerned well into adulthood and from which, in some circumstances, they may never completely escape. That possibility is one which, in my opinion, must be seriously taken into account for a variety of sentencing purposes. These would include the assessment of the moral culpability of an offender with respect to the commission of a specific offence and therefore could assume relevance when considering the significance to be attributed to the notion of retribution from wrongdoing as a sentencing consideration. Of course, it does not follow that individuals who come before the court with the type of history to which I have referred do not make choices or that they cannot be held fully accountable for conduct in which they voluntarily engage or which may be the ultimate product of deliberate lifestyle choices made by them. However, and obviously, in the determination of an appropriate sentence in an individual case, regard must be had to the particular circumstances of the offender concerned. As Buchanan JA has pointed out, the background against which an offence was committed could also possess relevance when a sentencing judge came to consider the offender’s prospects ofrehabilitation. It may indicate the presence of a need to endeavour, through the sentencing process, to protect the public and affect the weight given to specific deterrence in the determination of an appropriate sentence."
65 Applying these principles to this case a sentence which balances principles of general deterrence, protection of the public, and specific deterrence whilst at the same time giving recognition to the fact that your offending both in these offences and in past offending is almost entirely drug related. Whilst I have grave doubt you will ever be rehabilitated I must nevertheless impose a sentence that does not crush any aspirations which you may have to achieve that goal. It is in the community’s interest to encourage you to reach for full rehabilitation. You have taken some positive steps in prison to address your drug addiction. I hope that a reasonably lengthy term of imprisonment with assistance after release and a lengthy parole period will assist you to remain drug free.
66 I must impose a punishment which is, in all the circumstances, just. Section 5(2)(b) of the Act requires me in passing sentence upon you to also have regard to current sentencing practices. In passing sentence upon you I have taken current sentencing practices for the offences of armed robbery into account, and also criminal damage.
67 In this case, whilst at the time of offending you were under the influence of drugs you had nevertheless time to stop and reflect beforehand. I accept that your moral culpability is to some extent ameliorated by the fact that you have been under the influence of drugs from an early age because of factors to which you were subjected at a young age. Your mother’s suicide witnessed by you was the ultimate factor which triggered in you a grief reaction leading you to self medicate on drugs. I have taken this all into account in reducing application of the principle of general deterrence but ultimately you must bear the major share of responsibility for your actions.
68 In sentencing you I note there is very little that can be done by the Court to steer you in the right direction of treatment and assistance which you obviously need for your drug addiction. Your offending is too serious to entertain a disposition other than a term of imprisonment.
69 In sentencing you I have endeavoured to balance the principles of general deterrence and specific deterrence and to keep the punishment in proportion.
70 The prosecution on instructions submitted that I should impose a total effective sentence for the offending for which I sentence you in the range of four to five and a half years with a non parole period in the range of three to four and a half years.
71 Mr Thomas submitted the prosecution submissions as to appropriate range of sentence were far too high. Whilst Mr Thomas accepted the legal position that drug addiction is not an excuse for offending but, he submitted, I must have regard to your whole background and to the fact that you became a drug addict at an age and, because of factors, which robbed you of rational choice. He submitted there was evidence here of a clear link between your poor mental health suffering depression because of your background and drugs. He submitted this was a case where I should find your moral culpability for your offending should be reduced because of these factors. He relied upon what was said by Ashley JA in The Queen v Dupuy [2008] VSCA at [31] to the effect that there may be factors at work such that the court should not regard an offender’s drug use as voluntary. I accept these submissions.
72 Mr Thomas emphasised your pleas of guilty and expressions of remorse. He relied upon certificates of courses undertaken by you since you were imprisoned for this offending. He submitted that from your behaviour in custody you are determined to break the cycle of addiction. I was told and accept that you presently supervise in the prison kitchen at the Melbourne Remand Centre from 9.00am to 4pm each day. I was told and accept that you have work arranged with your father upon your release. These submissions point to a glimmer of hope for you. The path for you to full rehabilitation will be difficult and I doubt , based on your history, you will achieve it. But I sincerely hope that you do. In my view you should be encouraged to do so by the imposition of a term of imprisonment for this offending that does not crush your aspirations and which leaves you with a period of supervision and support whilst on parole.
73 In passing sentence I have not acted upon the prosecution submissions as to sentence and I accept and act upon the submissions of Mr Thomas.
74 On the charge of armed robbery in indictment B1272551 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two (2) and a half years.
75 On the charge of theft being charge 1 on indictment B1272551.1 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six (6) months.
76 On the charge of theft being charge 2 on indictment B1272551.1 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight (8) months.
77 On the charge of criminal damage being charge 3 on indictment B1272551.1 you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three (3) months.
78 On the summary charge of possessing a controlled weapon you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two (2) months.
79 On the summary charge of possessing an article for use in the course of theft you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two (2) months.
80 For the purposes of section 16(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 I direct that three (3) months of the sentence I have imposed on charge 1 on indictment B1272551.1 and six (6) months of the sentence I have imposed on charge 2 on indictment B1272551.1 cumulate upon the sentence I have imposed on the charge of armed robbery in indictment B1272551 and upon each other. This makes a total effective sentence of imprisonment of three (3) years and three (3) months.
81 I direct that you serve a minimum term of 26 months imprisonment before being eligible for release on parole.
82 For the purposes of subsection 18(4) Sentencing Act 1991 I declare that there has been 278 days pre-sentence detention and that 278 days be reckoned as having been served of the sentences handed down this day and be entered in the records of the court.
83 For the purposes of section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 I state I have imposed a sentence being a term of imprisonment in respect of the counts on the indictments and I have reduced the sentence I would have imposed but for your pleas of guilty. Had it not been for your pleas of guilty to the charges I would have imposed an effective term of imprisonment of four and a half years and I would have directed that you serve at least three years of that sentence before being eligible for release on parole.
84 The Office of Public Prosecutions has made application for an order directing you to undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of an intimate sample, from your body. The crime of armed robbery is a forensic sample offence under the Crimes Act 1958.
- - -
0
3
0