Director of Public Prosecutions v Groves

[2024] VCC 1420

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR -24-01252
CR -24-00071

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MARK GROVES

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCINERNEY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 September 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 September 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Groves
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1420

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Recklessly cause injury; persistent contravention of family violence intervention order; aggravated burglary (person present); intentionally damage property; assault emergency worker whilst on duty; unlawful assault; commit indictable offence whilst on bail; contravene conduct condition of bail; Verdins Principles 5 and 6.
Legislation Cited: s164 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic); s18 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); s125A Family Violence Intervention Act 2008 (Vic); s77A(1) Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); s197(1) Crimes Act 1958 (Vic);
Cases Cited: DPP v Pasinas [2014] VSCA 97; Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 312; Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342; DPP v Dalgleish [2017] ALJR 91.
Sentence: Four years and five months imprisonment with a non-parole period of thirty- six months.
6AAA- Seven and half years imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr R. Casey	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Offender	Ms E. Strugnell	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR: 

1Mr Groves was born on 16 May 1995.  He is now 29.  He is a building labourer by occupation.

2This plea was heard on 6 June of this year and the ninth of this month – that is, Monday – the matter was adjourned for sentence today.

3On those two hearings Ms Dickens appeared on behalf of the Director, Mr Casey appears today.  Throughout the three days Ms Strugnell has appeared on behalf of Mr Groves.

4On Monday an amended indictment No.C2400590 was filed. Pursuant to the provisions of s164 of the Criminal Procedure Act that filing over led to my ordering the original indictment be dismissed pursuant to that section.

5The original charges on the old indictment, one to three, are now Charges 4,5 and 6, all which occurred on 22 July 2023.

6Charges 1,2 and 3 in the new indictment now relate to charges which occurred in regard to Charge 1 on 17 January 2023, and to Charges 2 and 3 in the period from 28 January 2023 to 13 March 2023.

7Mr Groves was arraigned on Monday on the new indictment, that is the ninth of this month.  He pleaded guilty to all charges and the summary matters, which we have clarified today, were pleaded to on his behalf by Ms Strugnell.

8The first charge on the new indictment occurred on 17 January 2023 and relates to a charge of recklessly causing injury to his then partner, Sarah Kennedy[1]. This is an offence under s18 of the Crimes Act, with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or 600 penalty units.

[1] A pseudonym

9This occurred at 8.30 am when he decided to go to her home.  There was an issue in regard to the dog.  As a result of that the victim arrived home at approximately 9.23. 

10Mr Groves tried to force Ms Kennedy out of the house, he wanted to remove her from the life of the children because of his allegations as to her mental health, and during the discussion, to use his own words, he 'snapped.'

11He grabbed her throat and in that action, which clearly requires some particular strength, carried Ms Kennedy into another room and slammed her down onto the floor.  He then strangled her, giving her issues with breathing. 

12Thereafter they went to collect the dog.  While she was there, she messaged a friend who arranged for the police to arrive and Mr Groves was then arrested.  At that stage he denied the assaults suggesting that they had been caused in a more domestic circumstance.

13Charges 2 and 3 relate to charges of persistent contravention of the family violence intervention order which applied at the time.  This is an offence against s125A of the Family Violence Intervention Act.  The maximum penalty prescribed is one of five years or 600 penalty units.

14The family violence intervention order was imposed upon Mr Groves on 27 January 2023, obviously subsequent to the circumstances that I have already detailed in regard to Charge 1.  The protected persons in regard to that order were Ms Kennedy herself, who was 25 at the time, and the two children of both Mr Groves and Ms Kennedy, Thomas[2] and Samuel[3].

[2] A pseudonym

[3] A pseudonym

15Essentially, the breaches involved communication by way of telephone.  In regard to Charge 2 the number of calls was 124.  In regard to Charge 3 the number of calls was 43. 

16It should be mentioned that these matters are aggravated by the fact that Mr Groves was on bail at the time.

17It should also be pointed out that Ms Kennedy was in fact effecting contact herself knowing that the intervention order was such that her partner was not allowed to make such contact.

18The background of course to all this is what has been described as a very complex relationship, and certainly from the history given by Mr Groves, a
nine year relationship which has been closely connected to the abuse of drugs by both parties.

19We then come to Charge 4, which is the most serious charge on the indictment, a charge of aggravated burglary which occurred on 22 July 2023. Such is an offence under s77A(1) of the Crimes Act for which the maximum penalty prescribed is one of 25 years' imprisonment or 3,000 penalty units.

20This came about from again a discussion on the phone between the parties.  Apparently in anger Mr Groves' phone was broken, and that was used as an excuse by him to go to the premises at Marwarra Street, Ringwood East in order to talk to her.  The two aggravating factors of the burglary are that he knew that there was a person present, and he has pleaded guilty to having an intent to assault.  The two children that I have mentioned were home at the time.  Again, it appears that Mr Groves had lost control of himself, essentially by way of rage or jealousy, having allegedly seen his best friend jumping over the back fence, who I understand was named Brandon.

21Having initially spoken to Ms Kennedy outside the premises, once someone allegedly jumped over the back fence, Ms Kennedy took refuge in the house.  Mr Groves indicated to her he wanted to speak to her and in order to do that when she refused him entry he smashed in the door.

22Mr Groves then subsequently assaulted Ms Kennedy, which is a summary charge, I am not too certain why but that was a matter determined upon by the DPP who lay these charges.

23Clearly if one wants a definition of a confrontational aggravated burglary, this is one.  Of course, I take into account the comments of the Court of Appeal in regard to appropriate sentencing in those circumstances.

24As I said, the door was smashed in which is the basis of Charge 5, which is intentionally damage property, occurring obviously on the same date.  This is an offence under s197(1) for which the maximum penalty is 10 years or 1200 penalty units. The door was damaged to the extent of needing $500, a cost to Ms Kennedy to replace or repair.

25When Mr Groves was arrested he denied all allegations, and that day, when arrested after a warrant was executed, he was then taken to the police station where the sixth charge on the indictment took place, that is the assault on an emergency worker, which is an offence against s31(1)(b) of the Crimes Act for which the maximum penalty is one of five years with 600 penalty units.

26I should have said in regard to Charge 5, such is an offence under s197(1) for which the maximum penalty is 10 years or 1200 penalty units.

27Mr Groves was arrested in Wantirna South at 3.03 pm and taken to the Knox complex.  There he assaulted police custody officer, Mr Richardson, by squeezing his neck, again utilising particular strength to the extent that two other officers were required to prize him away from Mr Richardson.  I will come back to Officer Richardson's victim impact statement in due course, suffice to say he had an injured finger, bruising and soreness, particularly in the neck area.

28In addition to this matter are a number of summary offences which have been detailed this morning. The first is a summary charge of common assault, which is a breach of s23 of the Summary Offences Act where the maximum sentence involved is one of three months and/or 15 penalty units. 

29This assault took place when he did enter the house by way of the aggravated burglary, again he held Ms Kennedy in the air by her neck, screaming at her and asking her to identify who was the person that he saw getting over the back fence. 

30Summary Charges 7 and 11 relate to breaches of the family violence intervention order which breaches bring with them a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and 1,000 penalty units.

31Summary Offence 9 relates to both the assault of the police officer and the aggravated burglary and is an offence of breaching the conditions of bail under s30B of the Bail Act for which the maximum penalty is one of three months and 30 penalty units.

32As I said, at the time of the plea, the circumstances making up charges seven and eleven essentially are duplex in the sense of both involved the same offending, and I will deal with those in an appropriate manner in the sentence.

33The subsequent summary charges occurred on 30 August 2023 while Mr Groves was in prison and on remand awaiting this hearing.  They are Summary Charges 15 and 16, which again are breaches of the intervention order, this time under s123(2) of the Act for which the maximum penalty is one of two years' imprisonment and/or 120 penalty units.

34They were transferred to this Court pursuant to an order made on 1 August 2024 and involved, firstly, a letter sent to Ms Kennedy in terms of which he abused her to the extent of using terms 'fucking LOL', 'you are a pathetic cunt', and 'goodbye bitch.'

35The circumstances of the second charge, 16, are much less heinous and essentially involved, albeit a breach, an enquiry as to the children's welfare.  However, despite having gone through a litany of crimes starting in January that year, the aggravated burglary happening in July and he then being placed in gaol, these offences again demonstrate the animosity that was present in Mr Groves.  Animosity was still present in Mr Groves even in September of 2023.

36In dealing with the matters concerning Ms Kennedy, it is of course important to recognise the statements made by the Court of Appeal in regard to family violence and the responsibility that this Court has when sentencing persons who commit family violence. I refer to DPP v Pasinas [2014] VSCA 97, at [53], the Court said:

'Historically, perpetrators of family violence are rarely prosecuted.  Even when offenders were convicted of such offences they often received lenient sentences.  Fortunately, the criminal law now gives greater recognition to the devastating effects of family violence.  It has also been recognised that women who are killed by their husbands, boyfriend or de facto partner, have frequently been assaulted by them many times previously.  This makes both specific and general deterrence very important factors in sentencing men who assault their partners.'

And then at [54] the following:

'The effects of family violence are now well documented, they are not confined to physical injury, victims often feel responsible for the violence and the shame that they are not able to prevent the perpetrator from offending … it is common for victims to deny or conceal their partners have assaulted them until the violence becomes unbearable.'

37The victims in this case as to Mr Groves' criminality have both filed victim impact statements.  Exhibit C is the victim impact statement of Ms Kennedy and essentially relates to the circumstances surrounding January 2023, but in general can be taken to apply in total to her domestic relationship.

38I make the point of course that I am not sentencing for the impact of the totality of this relationship but only these criminal matters.

39Ms Kennedy  states that she suffers from ongoing impact of the day what she refers to as the 'day in January.'  She notes that this is continuing to occur despite the physical healing.  She suffers from anxiety and issues as to her safety, especially as it is necessary in the interests of the children, to maintain some form of contact with Mr Groves.

40I was told in the last hearing that there is mediation to go on in regard to the children, the unidentified victims, especially of a relationship of this type, are the children themselves.  We are dealing with two young boys who currently are being looked after by way of custodial care by their grandmother.  It would be hoped that in the mediation I am told to take place, consideration is given by all parties to the future of these children.

41Insofar as the officer is concerned, Officer Richardson's victim impact statement was tendered as Exhibit B.  There is a parallel in this assault, as I have said, remarked on by the officer as to the manner in which he was assaulted and lost his breath while he was being held around the neck.  The parallel of course is to the two assaults carried out on Ms Kennedy.

42Mr Richardson indicates problems with his work, his work being difficult enough.  A police officer should be able to conduct his sworn duties in safety.  This of course was not possible on this day because of the actions of Mr Groves. The objective seriousness of such an assault upon a police officer carrying out his duty is not to be under-estimated, and indeed it is one of the reasons why this specific charge was enacted by Parliament in regard to all emergency workers, albeit that in this case Mr Richardson is a police officer.  As I indicated, the physical injuries that he suffered have now healed.  The only consequences he is left with, as he details, are mental consequences.

43Coming then to the submissions.

44On the plea the prosecution upon all the material submitted that imprisonment with a parole order was appropriate, but also that a combined sentence, that is of a period of imprisonment and a community correction order under s44 of the Sentencing Act was in the range.

45At the last hearing on 9 September the prosecutor stressed the objective seriousness of each of these charges.  The prosecutor accepted the applicability of Verdins Principles 5 and 6, which I will comment on later, but submitted that they were the only Verdins principles applicable.  She further submitted that general deterrence was of great significance in this matter, not only because it involved family violence insofar as Ms Kennedy is concerned, but also an assault upon an officer carrying out his duty, as the circumstances that I have described concerning Mr Richardson are.

46In submission as to the future rehabilitation of Mr Groves, considering his progress in gaol and matters that I will come to, and the fact of him having no priors, the prosecutor submitted that the Court should have some optimism that Mr Groves can rehabilitate.  She pointed out that in particular Charge 6 could not be included if there was to be an aggregate sentence as it is quite a separate offence.  I accept that totally.

47Ms Strugnell, in both orally and in Exhibit 1 at [11], submitted that a combination sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances.

48Initially, that was made as detailed on the basis of the opinion of Ms Cidoni, psychologist, being Exhibit 2.  Such submission was postulated on the diagnosis made by Ms Cidoni upon evaluation of Mr Groves of such being consistent with a possible diagnosis of bipolar disorder, see [85] of Exhibit 2.

49The matter was adjourned to clarify this issue, hence the filing of Exhibit 7, the psychiatric report of Dr Hanratty which did not support such a diagnosis, see [126] and [130]. And albeit a diagnosis of ADHD was not made by Dr Hanratty, he did not dismiss the fact that possibly it may exist, but if it did, it was mild indeed, see [160].

50An analysis of Mr Groves' mental health is an extremely complex task for the Court.  I will come to that later.  But it is to be noted that Ms Cidoni in her report confirmed that Mr Groves suffers from no cognitive impairment and that pre-prison, that is pre going to prison, he never required treatment for any psychiatric or mental issues.

51Apart from the above, Ms Strugnell in the last hearing maintained the submission for a combined sentence, relying on the following factors by way of mitigation:

52Firstly, at the age of 29 Mr Groves comes before the Court with no prior criminal offending at all but for a minor matter which is of no relevance, at which no conviction was recorded anyway.  He comes before the Court pleading guilty to all offences, which is not only utilitarian but facilitates justice, and was put as an indication of remorse.

53It seems to me, disregarding the circumstances of the latter offences in 2023, the steps he has taken can be seen as indicative of remorse.

54In the submission also relied upon by Ms Strugnell was Mr Groves excellent family background and his good employment record set out at paragraph 4 (a) to (e). 

55Ms Strugnell also relied upon the character reference of Ms Healey Collier which was tendered at Exhibit 5, and the reference to Mr Groves as to his character, to use Ms Strugnell's words, 'when he's stable.'  It was further referred to of his own expressions of remorse set out in the letter to this Court, being Exhibit 6, which is a seven page letter.

56The next matter relied upon was the stabilisation that has taken place in his life,  while in prison, due to the medication that he is now taking being Sertraline in regard to depression and Seroquel being an antipsychotic.

57The other factors taking place in prison is the self-thought process, as detailed in his letter, the fact that he is free from alcohol and drugs, and the programs that he has undertaken in this regard, see Exhibit 4, which was tendered here.

58The next matter relied upon is the fact that Mr Groves submits to the Court that he has been drug free while in gaol.  We are now up to 449 days by way of
pre-sentence detention, there is no evidence to contradict that matter.  There is also no evidence before the Court of any random testing.

59The final matter put by Ms Strugnell was the mental condition of Mr Groves at the time of this offending.  It was the defence submission as to Verdins Limb 1 that such applies to reduce the moral culpability of his crime.

60As I have said, the principal basis for that and the diagnosis made by Ms Cidoni was largely deflated by the opinion that I have detailed of Dr Hanratty.  However, within Dr Hanratty's opinions are further diagnoses which relate to Mr Groves.

61As I have already described, his history is complex.  Mr Groves describes never having not felt anxious or depressed, as he now understands the meaning of the word.  What he really described was low mood which was reported in the context of substance use and psychological stressors.

62As to the criminality in January and March 2023, it was the opinion of Dr Hanratty that he was suffering from an adjustment disorder following the break-up, see [131].

63Dr Hanratty was of the opinion that Mr Groves had an episode of probable major depressive disorder at the time of the July 2023 offences with distress of a mild to moderate severity, see [132].

64Dr Hanratty noted that Mr Groves was a complex individual [133] with traits of borderline personality disorder, an anti-social disorder illustrated by him mistreating others and showing total lack of remorse and impulsivity, see [134].

65At [135] he diagnosed that Mr Groves has a mildly severe personality disorder, reflected in interpersonal relationship problems.

66As he said at [140], albeit that his diagnosis is quite different to Ms Cidoni, the diagnoses, the underlying symptoms and their impact, resulting in substance abuse, and difficulties with handling his anger in relationships, are in fact quite similar.  And of course, as I have said, you add to that issue the fact that he was gravely abusing drugs and alcohol at the time of this offending.

67As to the January offending, Mr Hanratty, in the context of the diagnosis, opined that Mr Groves impulsively assaulted Ms Kennedy in the context of his anger and frustration with her, see [143]. That of course is clearly demonstrated in his letter to the Court when in Exhibit 6 he said, talking of these matters, that he was frustrated during such discussion, and to use his term, 'got worked up.' Of course, his condition was aggravated at that time by cannabis and Valium abuse, see [144].

68Mr Hanratty took the view that his disorders played no part in regard to Charges 2 and 3, see [147].

69As to the charges that occurred on the day of the aggravated burglary, it is clear that Mr Groves was, to use his words, 'livid with anger and rage' when he went to the home and found what he believed to be his friend jumping over the back fence.  Such was of course exacerbated by his partaking in a large amount alcohol, Xanax and cannabis at the time.  As Mr Groves said, at that time had a daily intake of 10 Jack Daniels cans, Valium, which he suggests he had half a bottle of at the time of this offending, and in addition had 10 Xanax tablets.

70Again, he described himself in the letter to the Court, 'as a ticking time bomb.'

71In regard to that offending Mr Hanratty said that his mental issues again could be seen as contributing, but in an indirect way, see [149].

72Mr Hanratty, as to summary charges 15 and 16, opines there is no contribution from his depressive disorder or his possible ADHD.

73In making an assessment, based upon all of the evidence in regard to Mr Groves, it is necessary to recall from the authorities that in order for the argument put by Ms Strugnell to succeed, such argument must be rigorously scrutinised by this Court.  There is no doubt following the decision of Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 312, at [68], that a personality disorder is sufficient to enliven Limbs 1 to 3 of Verdins.  However, as they said, such would normally be a disorder of some severity.

74Having rigorously scrutinised the evidence I have just detailed, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities, despite the diagnoses of Mr Groves' mental condition by Mr Hanratty, that such conduct was such that at the time of these offences his ability to exercise appropriate judgment was impaired by such mental condition, or that it obscured his intent, or that it impacted on his capacity to make rational choices.

75I consider that this determination is supported by the history of Mr Groves himself, having no criminal priors, despite longstanding ongoing what has now been described as depressive symptoms, which he called low mood, from approximately the age of 10.  I Find, such background illustrates the impact that the end of this relationship, his rage and inability to accept the end of the relationship, and him heavily indulging in drugs at the time which led to these criminal matters.

76He was, I find, an entitled partner who could not accept the decision of Ms Kennedy to break from him.  The situation caused him frustration and anger which was gravely exacerbated by excessive substance abuse.  He lashed out at his partner at such time, gave into anger, frustration and rage, and deliberately, in my view, broke the law, physically abused his partner and forced his way into her premises to do so, and then subsequently assaulted the prison officer.

77Mr Groves asserts that, post the medical treatment he is now receiving in gaol, which I have detailed, that he is now much more calm and accepting of his life.  As I said, one notes, however, the offending that took place in prison in September has not been reflective of such.

78Given his personality makeup, Mr Groves, as I have said at the plea, is a person who simply cannot utilise alcohol or drugs at all, needs to stay on his medication that he is now undergoing, and to complete the programs recommended, firstly, by Ms Cidoni at paragraphs 109 and 110, by Dr Hanratty at paragraph 158, and in the CCO report, Exhibit D, and in Exhibit E by the condition described in that report as mild mental health issues, see p4.

79All of those opinions recognise that if Mr Groves does not follow such path, he will not effect rehabilitation.  If he does not follow such path, he is a high risk, not only of general offending but of committing further family violence, see [94] and [106] of Ms Cidoni's report.

80Hence, I formally reject the submission that Verdins Principle 1 operates to reduce Mr Groves' moral culpability for any of his crimes.  Nor that he is not an appropriate vehicle for a sentence which exhibits general deterrence.  Clearly, the diagnoses of his mental conditions has to be taken into account by me in this sentence. 

81However, can I say to you, Mr Groves, there will be no more leniency for you if you come back, with these serious priors, and you do not do as you vouch that you are going to do. 

82Protection of the community is also important in this regard.  I specifically indicate that I do not take into account in this sentence the history that Mr Groves gave to Dr Hanna of assaulting many of his partners.  And further, I do not take into account the history that he gave to Dr Hanratty of him carrying a knife and making threats with a knife, [157].

83Provided the intent expressed to the Court in his letter, the actions he has taken in prison to change his life, that he continues to take the medication prescribed, and most importantly, that he does not partake of alcohol and drugs, I am satisfied, as put by Ms Strugnell and put on a positive light by the prosecutor, that rehabilitation can be effected.  Let us all hope that the intent to change his life is not feigned.  The fact of him having no priors at this age should justify a positive view in this regard.

84However, Mr Groves, it is all up to you.  You must continue your medical treatment, you must not partake of drugs and you must not abuse alcohol. 

85As I said, with these priors now, if you do not change your life as you have indicated you will, there will be no more merciful sentences for you.

86Coming to your sentence.  Unfortunately, Mr Groves, having given the matter close consideration, the seriousness of the charges, in particular Charges 1,4 and 6, are such that despite the strong mitigating factors put on your behalf by Ms Strugnell, I have come to a view, given the totality of your offending, that it would not be an appropriate sentence to pass a combined sentence of gaol and community correction order.

87In regard to that determination, I want to quote from the Court of Appeal in Hutchison v The Queen [2015] VSCA 115, where they discussed Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342, at [17] and where Priest JA said:

'Acknowledging that a community correction order might be appropriate, even in cases of relatively serious offences which might previously have attracted a medium term of imprisonment, it should not be thought that Boulton offers a get-out-of-gaol free card in situations where a sentence of imprisonment is necessary in a given case to satisfy the various purposes for which a sentence may be imposed. 

One of the purposes for which the sentence may be imposed of course is to punish the offender to the extent and in the manner which is just in all the circumstances.  There will be cases, indeed many cases, where having regard to the seriousness of the offending a community correction order will be insufficiently punitive to satisfy the need to punish the offender in a manner which, in all of the circumstances, is just.

At the risk of again traversing sell-trodden ground, it is axiomatic that in every case the sentence imposed must depend on its own facts, including the circumstances of the offending and the offender, and the circumstances of aggravation and mitigation.'

88As I have said, I have rejected the submission put by your counsel as to a combined sentence, despite the prosecution accepting that it was within range.

89Mr Groves, you are of course entitled to an individualised just sentence based on the facts of this case, as prescribed by the High Court in DPP v Dalgleish [2017] ALJR 91, at [1063], [1072] and [49].

90If you would be good enough to stand please, Mr Groves.

91In regard to the indictment, Charge 1 being the assault on your partner in January of 2023, you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of nine months.

92In regard to each of Charges 2 and 3, which are the persistent breaches of the family violence intervention order, on each such charge you will be sentenced to four months' imprisonment.

93Charge 4, being the aggravated burglary upon your partner's premises, you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of three years.

94In regard to Charge 5, being the damage to the property, a period of imprisonment of three months.

95And in regard to Charge 6, the assault upon the emergency worker, in this case Prison Officer Richardson, you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of nine months.

96Insofar as that indictment is concerned, the head sentence will be the three years imposed by way of imprisonment for Charge 4, being the aggravated burglary.

97I order that cumulated upon each other and the head sentence will be insofar as Count 1 is concerned, that is the assault on your wife in January, six months cumulated upon the head sentence.

98In regard to Charges 2 and 3 of the persistent breaches of the family violence intervention order, one month of each sentence will be cumulated.

99And in regard to Charge 6, being the assault upon the officer, six months will be cumulated.

100That makes a total aggregate sentence in the indictment of four years and two months.

101Insofar as the summary offences are concerned, on Summary Offence 4, being the assault upon your wife, you will be sentenced to a period of two months' gaol.

102In regard to Summary Offence seven, six months' imprisonment.

103In regard to Summary Offence 9, two months' imprisonment.

104In regard to Summary Offence 11, one month imprisonment.

105In regard to Summary Offence 15, that is the first of the offences of the breach while in prison, four months' imprisonment.

106And in regard to Summary Offence 16, one month imprisonment.

107I order that two months of the sentence in summary offence seven of six months be served by way of cumulation upon the total aggregated sentence passed in the indictment, and in regard to Charge 15 that one month be aggregated upon not only summary offence 7 but upon the aggregated sentence passed in regard to the indictment.

108That will therefore mean that three months will be cumulated upon the indictment sentence to produce a total aggregate sentence for the indictment and the summary offences of four years and five months.

109I order that the non-parole period to be imposed insofar as that sentence is concerned, that is the period that you must serve before being eligible for parole, is one of 36 months.

110I further declare that the 449 days that you have served to date by way of
pre-sentence detention be declared as service of this sentence and that a record of such declaration be lodged in the records of this Court pursuant to the provisions of s18.

111Mr Groves, Parliament has decreed that it is appropriate that a person such as yourself who pleads guilty to crimes should be given an indication of the penalty that would have applied in your case had you not pleaded guilty.  Because the matter is so complex and the factors that I had to take into account are so complex, trying to determine what the penalty would have been by just taking into account one factor, that is, that you pleaded not guilty, it seems to me nigh-on impossible.

112However, can I tell you that insofar as an aggregate sentence is concerned, had you not pleaded guilty the aggregate sentence passed on you today of four years and five months, would not have been that, but would have been, at least seven and a half years.  I will not go further as to what non-parole period I would have imposed.

113Just excuse me for one second.  You can take a seat Mr Groves.

114Ms Strugnell, I understand this is a detailed sentence, are there any matters you want me to clarify.

115MS STRUGNELL:  No, Your Honour. 

116MR CASEY:  No, not from me, Your Honour.

117HIS HONOUR:  So the end result, without trying to be exact about this matter, but it seems like of the 36 months which is the non-parole period, Mr Groves has served approximately 14 and a half months. 

118Yes, Mr Groves, you can be taken away, but I hope you bear in mind what everyone has said and what we hope for you. 

119(Offender removed.)

120That might be a faint hope.  Still, it's never easy to react to being put in gaol, let's hope it's not feigned. 

121Yes, Mr Casey, if you can pass on not only my thanks to you but to Ms Dickens for her assistance in this case.

122MR CASEY:  Yes, of course, Your Honour.

123HIS HONOUR:  And also to you, Ms Strugnell.

124MS STRUGNELL:  Thank you, Your Honour. 

125HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.

‑ ‑ ‑