Director of Public Prosecutions v Haddara
[2022] VCC 451
•1 April 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-19-02157
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MOHAMMED HADDARA |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE TODD | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | Plea hearing on 14 October 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 1 April 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v HADDARA | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 451 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – one charge extortion with threats to inflict injury – one charge intentionally damaging property – circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1954 ; Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 212; DPP v Burton 2019 VCC 2087; DPP v Fry 2018 VCC 1021; Markovic v R [2010] VSCA 105; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 15 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 months’ imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr M. Perry | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr S. Andrianakis | Theo Magazis & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
Plea of Guilty and Maximum Penalties
1Mohammed Haddara, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of extortion with threats to inflict injury, a charge which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.
2You have also pleaded guilty to one charge of damaging property, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years’ imprisonment.
Circumstances of the Offending
3The circumstances of your offending were set out in the Prosecution Opening for Plea, dated 15 July 2021. That document was tendered on the plea and became Exhibit A. It is attached to and forms part of these reasons; I will not repeat it all here but summarise just some of the facts giving rise to your offending.
4In 2017 you paid a $35,000 deposit on a block of land in Point Cook that was in the process of being subdivided. At the time, you had a bank loan approved for $750,000 and were intending to build on the land. However, delay in the development of the land caused the loan approval to lapse.
5On 14 November 2018 you contacted Joanna Tsparas, requesting her services in obtaining mortgage finance in relation to the property. Ms Tsparas was employed by ‘J & A Referrals Pty Ltd’, a family business that provided services to the construction industry and also operated as a referral business for clients requiring loans from mortgage brokers. It was the custom that this business charged a commission of between about 1.5 and 3% of the loan amount.
6In the weeks that followed, you and Ms Tsparas were in contact by phone and email to arrange for the information required to support an application being prepared by the broker. You provided your financial and identification documents to her and agreed to pay a 3% commission via an initial bank deposit, with the balance payable on completion of the purchase. Ms Tsparas also referred you to an accountant to assist with an incomplete tax return which was required for the finance application. You paid $7,500 to Ms Tsparas’ business (from which $5000 was referred to an accountant) and the further $2500 to be paid upon completion.
7
Unconditional approval of the loan was not obtained prior to the settlement date for the property because you had not lodged all the required documents, and on
5 December 2018 you were served with a ‘Recission Notice’ in relation to the contract for the property that you intended to buy.
8You believed (erroneously it would seem) that you had lost your deposit and could not settle the property.
Charge 1: Extortion with Threats to Inflict Injury
9Between 5 and 9 December 2018, in an attempt to recover the money you had paid, you sent a series of threatening text messages to Ms Tsaparas, demanding she repay you.
10On 6 December 2018 at about 5.16 pm you sent Ms Tsaparas a message telling her, ‘I want every fuckn’ dollar back. By tomorrow’.
11The next day, at about 9.11 pm you sent her three consecutive messages which included her son’s phone number, and the words: ‘I’ll get my money from your son’ and ‘Bitch’.
12The day after that at about 11.44 pm you sent Ms Tsparas another message telling her ‘Wee pee am coming for u and your family. Just wait’. Shortly after that, you sent two consecutive messages that said ‘Your gonna pay bitch’ and ‘U fucked with wrong family HADDARA GOOGLE IT’. A few minutes later you sent her a message referring by name to members of her family that said, ‘So am coming For Anna Thanos Demos And u bitch And maybe John’. When she replied asking who they were you responded, ‘Wen I pull u out from your hair At 3 in the morning u can tell me’.
13In the early hours of the next day on 9 December 2018 you sent Ms Tsaparas a message which included bank account details and said, '50k that i lost cause of u If I don’t get this buy tomorrow U will see wats gonna happen and that’s last txt’. Ms Tsaparas went immediately to the Oakleigh Police Station to report the threats and make a statement.
14This conduct that I have just described constitutes Charge 1: extortion with threats to inflict injury.
Charge 2: Damaging Property
15The next day, 10 December 2018, at about 12.35 pm, Ms Tsparas was sitting in her car outside the ‘Genuine Print’ store in Oakleigh. She answered a phone call from an unknown man who asked her for her location and address. As soon as she hung up, Ms Tsparas heard a man shout, 'Joanna I got you!'. She then saw you standing outside the ‘Genuine Print’ store with a phone to your ear. Frightened, she quickly drove off.
16Ms Tsparas believed you were following her – and you were. She drove around the streets. She pulled into Atherton Street and saw you driving a large white four wheel drive behind her. This made her uncomfortable so she pulled into Holland Court and parked on the side of the road.
17Ms Tsaparas sat in her car. You accelerated towards the driver’s side of her car. She was able to accelerate forward just in time to avoid a direct strike to the driver’s side door. Your car crashed instead into the rear driver’s side door, causing significant damage to the right rear quarter panel and passenger door as well as the driver’s side pillar. This constitutes Charge 2: damaging property.
18When Ms Tsparas drove away you followed her along Atherton Road for about a kilometre. You only stopped following her when she arrived at the Oakleigh Police Station, she got out of the passenger side of her car (her side was too damaged to open the door), ran into the police station and shouted for help.
19Later that day, while still with the police at the Oakleigh Police Station, Ms Tsparas received a phone call from a private number that records later established was registered to your wife. A female voice asked Ms Tsparas, 'How you doing? How did you like the shake up today? You better be prepared, there’s more coming your way'.
20A few minutes later you called Ms Tsparas a number of times from a private number making repeated demands for $50,000. You said:
'I want my $50 grand you bitch you ripped me off';
'The next one will be a bullet. Today was a warning';
'You will give me ½ the money tomorrow, that’s $25 grand by eight o’clock, and the rest by the end of the week';
'I’ll get you, then your son and your daughter, I’ll get them all'; and
'You’ll lose ½ your leg or ½ your arm. So you will pay for it and you can pay. I will get you, I will kill you, you fucking bitch, I’ll get you'.
21These calls were heard by members of Victoria Police and recorded.
22I note carefully that the prosecution put its case on the basis that the matters that I have just most recently summarised are to be seen as context of your offending, rather than as particulars of the offence itself. I note that the words spoken by the female, the subject of those matters, are not linked specifically to you, Mr Haddara, nor is there evidence to show that you requested that that call was made.
23I make it clear then that while these other matters show the full context of your offending, the particulars of the offence for which you will be sentenced on the charge of extortion with threat to inflict injury, are the matters going up to and including the statement, 'If I don’t get this buy tomorrow U will see wats gonna happen and that’s last txt’.
Arrest and Interview
24On 11 December 2018 you were arrested in the Melbourne central business district.
25In your interview with Police you admitted to making demands of Ms Tsparas for $50,000 and said it was money owed to you for losses from the failed loan application process.
26You denied ever threatening to kill Ms Tsparas and any involvement in the incident at Oakleigh on 10 December.
27You denied you were the driver of the car and denied that a white Toyota Hilux was at your address.
28You told Police that on the day of the driving incident you were at Crown Casino from 9 am to 3.45 pm and that you had been driving your partner’s car. CCTV footage of your home address and Crown Casino established that this was in fact false.
Procedural History
29Turning to the procedural history of your case, this matter resolved to a plea after a contested committal hearing, after which you indicated an intention to plead guilty.
30
Attempts to resolve the case commenced soon after the provision of a Prosecution Opening in November 2020. There had been earlier attempts to resolve
pre-committal. The final resolution, I note, is narrower than the suite of original charges. Although Ms Tsaparas was cross-examined at committal she was spared further cross-examination at trial by your plea, and this is an important matter which I will take into account.
Nature and Gravity of the Offending: Culpability and Degree of Responsibility
31I must address the nature and gravity of your offending and your culpability and degree of responsibility, and also articulate where your offending fits into a range of similar offending.
32
Mr Haddara, this was aggressive, persistent and entitled behaviour undertaken by you on the mistaken understanding that you had been defrauded the amount of the deposit and what you had paid in brokerage and accounting fees. You decided you had been mistreated in this way, and instead of trying to find out more or to enforce your legal rights, you went about contacting Ms Tsaparas in a calculated and menacing way. While I have accepted the psychological evidence that it was possible or even likely that you were suffering a hypomanic episode connected with your Bipolar II disorder, I also note that there is a degree of organisation, deliberation and persistence that attended what you did. You somehow found
Ms Tsaparas’ details and it would seem, those of her family, and over a period of days tracked her down so you could have a of face-to-face confrontation with her.
33You followed her in your car and ultimately damaged her car by driving at it while she was inside. I make it very clear that I am sentencing you for the criminal damage to the vehicle only, and not in relation to some other intent in relation to Ms Tsaparis. Nevertheless, Ms Tsaparas’ presence in the car forms part of the circumstances of your offending. I sentence you for the criminal damage that you inflicted on her car, but in the context of the threats that had been made and your pursuit of her. I accept your barrister’s submission that even though the charge of reckless conduct endangering serious injury (which was originally charged), attracts a lower maximum penalty than the charge to which you ultimately pleaded guilty, the culpability for the withdrawn charge was indeed higher. I repeat that I sentence you for the criminal damage charge in its proper context, with due regard to the elements of that and no other offence.
34
What you did, and to be clear now, I refer again to the conduct giving rise to
Charge 1, was unacceptable, aggressive and calculated to have the effect of terrifying Ms Tsaparas.
35I accept that to some degree your moral culpability is reduced on account of the psychological forces under which you laboured at the time of the offending, and I will address the psychological material in this case separately.
36Objectively, however, I find that the offending sits somewhere beyond the midpoint on the scale of similar offending; this position is then altered by the reduction in moral culpability as a result of the psychological problems under which you labour and with which I will deal later in these reasons.
Victim Impact
37Referring now to the impact of your offending on your victim. Sensibly, it was conceded by your counsel that what you did was no doubt highly distressing for Ms Tsaparas. She wrote a victim impact statement, the relevant parts of which I have taken into account. Ms Tsparas wrote that she, 'feels stressed all day, in a constant state of worry', and like, 'there is a threat out there'. She feels she is, 'being chased'. She says, 'I live with the thought that he might do something to me or my children'. She suffers from panic attacks. She feels she has to reassure people around her that she feels all right. These events changed her capacity to work and her capacity to trust others.
38She should never have been made to feel that way by you and I take the effect on your victim into account.
Criminal Record
39You have admitted a prior criminal history. You have an enduring criminal record. Your offending commences with minor driving and dishonesty offending in 2007. By 2012 you had been dealt with in Court a number of times. You were dealt with for the offence of reckless conduct endangering serious injury in 2012, for which you received a Community Corrections Order, which you then breached in 2014. Most of your past offending appears to relate to driving and relatively minor dishonesty with the exception of the reckless conduct endangering serious injury charge, although I am not possessed of any details about that offending.
40I note that your history records your breach of a range of court orders including a community-based order, intensive corrections order, and an intervention order and a suspended sentence.
41However, I also note that some of your history is now quite old, there is no subsequent offending and nothing pending.
Personal Circumstances
42I will now turn to your personal circumstances.
43You are now 33 and you committed these offences when you were 30.
44You were born in Lebanon, and moved to Australia at the age of six or seven. You were raised in the Altona North area.
45You had a truly difficult childhood. You mother died of cancer when you were just 12 years old and your father of heart failure just three months later. These losses, no doubt, and I understand why, have weighed heavily on you.
46You were primarily raised by your brother.
47You have five sisters and four brothers who were raised by extended family. You do not share a close relationship with this family and consider yourself to be an outsider.
48You went to Bayside Secondary College up to Year 10.
49
You then completed a mechanics’ apprenticeship before working at ‘The Garage’ in Brunswick for four years. You worked at Toyota for two years, then West Side Car City for four years, eventually opening your own auto-mechanic business,
MC Auto Service Centre, at Hoppers Crossing. You have operated this business for six years and employ one qualified mechanic and one apprentice.
50Your business has experienced extreme hardship in the last 18 months during the pandemic.
51You have three young children with your wife, Chyenne: they are now aged between three and six years old.
52Your relationship with Chyenne has experienced difficulties associated with the financial consequences of this matter and business losses due to the pandemic. You lived separately for a short period after the imposition of an intervention order, but you are now living together again with the children, and your wife remains supportive of you.
Matters in Mitigation
Plea of Guilty
53Turning to matters in mitigation. You entered a plea of guilty to these charges and by doing so you saved the community, but most importantly, the witnesses from the costs, both human and financial, of conducting a trial and. As I have said, that is very important in reducing your sentence.
54Moreover, I must impose a sentence in the context of the pandemic where the additional benefit to you for pleading guilty is palpable. The justice system is currently under enormous strain and you have taken one more trial out of a very long list. The range of ways cases are delayed at the moment continue to multiply and entrench long lists of cases awaiting trial. The benefit to the administration of justice that your plea bestows will be recognised, and recognised in a substantial way,[1] and I make it very clear that were it not for these circumstances, which have severely restrained the administration of justice in Victoria, your sentence would have been much higher.
[1]Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
Medical History
Psychological Material
55Turning now to medical and psychological material on your plea. The history of the psychological material relied on in this case is rich. Multiple adjournments were obtained to further the provision of psychological evidence in this plea.
56Initially, on your plea, your counsel placed reliance on the report of Gina Cidoni, dated 8 July 2021.[2] Questions were raised by myself and by the prosecutor about the opinions expressed in that report, whether the assessor had spent sufficient time in arriving at her diagnosis, and the possible the roles for each of the sentencing purposes if its contents were relied upon; the case was adjourned for further material to be obtained.
[2] Exhibit 2.
57Ms Cidoni then provided an addendum report, dated 15 November 2021, though she had written it without seeing Mr Haddara. At the following hearing, your barrister eschewed all reliance on Ms Cidoni’s opinion and no ‘Verdins’ submissions were pressed other than that as relevant to the burden of imprisonment.
58At a subsequent hearing, a report by Dr Grech, dated 6 December 21 was tendered, and later, at a further hearing again a supplementary report by Dr Grech dated 16 March 2022.
59Finally a report of Dr Akinbiyi, psychiatrist, dated 21 March 2022, was tendered.
60The various diagnoses to emerge from those reports were:
(a) borderline personality disorder;
(b) paranoid personality disorder;
(c) major depressive disorder;
(d) chronic adjustment disorder;
(e) Bipolar II disorder;
the last of these being a consistent opinion between the authors of Dr Grech and Akinbiyi.
61
I pause here to note that the range and number of opinions as to your psychological difficulties and how these are said to impact upon your sentence created delay and difficulty in this case. Ultimately, all reliance on the diagnoses of Ms Cidoni was abandoned. Instead, your counsel pressed only the Grech and Akinbayi opinions as coherent and consistent opinions relevant to the mitigation of your sentence, and I have taken into account the entirety of Dr Grech and
Dr Akinbayi opinions.
62
The diagnosis consistent across these two reports was ‘Bipolar II’ disorder. In
Dr Akinbayi’s opinion, it is ‘possible’ that you, Mr Haddara, would have been in the manic phase of your bipolar disorder around the time of the offending behaviour and Dr Grech shared this opinion.
63Dr Akinbayi placed you on a combination of risperidone and lithium. Moreover, you attended regular appointments with Dr Grech late in 2021 and throughout the first quarter of 2022. Dr Grech noted that you were responding favourably to treatment and your insight into your offending and your tolerance for distress was significantly improving.
64It was submitted that the content of these expert reports compelled the court to assess your moral culpability as being reduced, given the possible or even likely effect of this disorder on you psychologically at the time of the commission of these offences. Of course, it is the likely impact of the impairment on you, and the relationship of that to the offending, rather than any diagnostic label, that matters.[3] Here, the opinion of Dr Grech was that the condition may cause your judgment to be blurred in the context of a hypomanic episode and would be accompanied by racing thoughts and intense anger and other features.
[3]DPP v Daylia Brown [2020] VSCA 212, [61].
65Moreover, it was said that imprisonment would weigh more heavily upon you and lead to a possible deterioration of your condition while in custody, given that the treatment you had embarked upon (both pharmacotherapy and counselling) were, at least in part, not available if committed into custody. It was also argued that there is a reduced role for denunciation in those circumstances.
66It was also submitted that the roles for specific and general deterrence were reduced on account of your having so thoroughly engaged in treatment, thereby reducing the likelihood of your offending again in future; moreover, because of your condition, you are a less appropriate vehicle for general deterrence in the circumstances.
67I accept that on the basis of the most recent psychological material, your moral culpability is somewhat reduced, on account of the operation of what is now diagnosed as bi-polar disorder and the hypomanic aspects of it. I was urged by the prosecutor to keep the psychological material in perspective though, and to also have regard to the otherwise relatively functional aspects of your life in assessing the weight to attach to this evidence. You run your own business, maintain a family, and were capable of transacting the business for the mortgage, the subject of the offending. The psychological evidence does provide context, and a reduction in the force of some of the purposes of this sentence but does not eliminate the roles of other sentencing features.
68Moreover, I accept that the nuanced treatment you are now submitting to is unlikely to be available to you in their current form in a custodial environment. However, I do not accept that your progress would be entirely interrupted. I do accept that the psychological material warrants some reduction in general and specific deterrence in this sentence. However, I do not conclude there is no role for these sentencing objectives in this case. Indeed, in his written submissions your counsel conceded the roles for both general and specific deterrence.
69I accept that there is some potential for gains made in treatment so far to be, if not reversed, then at least suspended during a period of incarceration. In short, I accept that, on the basis of the psychological opinions, as being generally capable of reducing, to a degree, your moral culpability, the roles for general and specific deterrence, and I accept that imprisonment might weigh more heavily upon you and may reverse or suspend to some degree your gains in treatment. Further, I accept that the early signs are there that you, Mr Haddara, have now embraced some psychological treatment and that this bodes well for my assessment of your rehabilitation.
Physical Health
70Turning now to physical health. You suffered a back injury in March 2020 with damage to two vertebra discs. You suffer ongoing pain in association with this injury and that too, would cause your discomfort in custody and I will take that into account.
71In a letter dated 17 October 2021 your general practitioner noted that you were infected with COVID-19 in September 2021 and became quite unwell and were admitted to hospital for treatment of your symptoms. From 17 October you were clear of the virus but had to defer vaccination for at least some months from that time. Your counsel noted that you are now suffering the effects of ‘long COVID’, and I accept that this condition would make the burden of imprisonment greater for you.
Prospects of Rehabilitation
72I must assess your prospects of rehabilitation.
73It was submitted that you have a long, stable work history and a dependent family. Although there have been periods of separation from your wife, you are currently living together and raising three children.
74Since the offending you have participated in an anger management program and a road trauma awareness seminar.[4] You have more recently committed to a course of psychological and psychiatric treatment. These efforts indicate that you have recognised that you need to address the way you conduct yourself in stressful situations.
[4] Certificates tendered as Exhibits 4 & 5 on the Plea.
75I have also taken into account the character references of Frank Michel and Mouhamed Jawa tendered as exhibits on the Plea. I have also read your wife, Chyenne Cardona’s reference and take into account her continued support of you in assessing your rehabilitation.
76Mr Haddara, you have the architecture in place for a prosperous and law-abiding life in the community and your rehabilitation will depend on your capacity to continue to build on the personal changes that you need to make.
77I accept that your prospects of rehabilitation from here on are good. I accept that your plea also contains within it an aspect of remorse and an acceptance of your responsibility.
Delay
78Turning now to delay, this offending took place in 2018 and you have no further charges arising in the interim. Moreover, you have used your time well to seek psychological assistance. I accept that you have also experienced some punishment already by reason of having this matter hanging over your head for a considerable period.
Burden of Imprisonment
79Turning now to the burden of your imprisonment. On your plea it was argued that the hardship of a sentence of imprisonment would impose on your family ought be regarded in the class of, ‘exceptional family hardship’, and be directly mitigating of your sentence. I was clear that I accepted the difficulties, particularly the financial difficulties that your young family would face upon your incarceration, would cause any sentence served by you to be more onerous. I do not accept, however, that these hardships were sufficient that they rise to the level that the Court of Appeal was concerned with in the case of Markovic[5] and the associated cases. I refer in particular to paragraphs [6] and [7] of that case, about the restraint that is required when tempted to exercise leniency on the basis of the hardship to an accused’s family. The court's primary function, it is said, is to impose a sentence which reflects the proper gravity of this crime; and there will rarely be a case where a sentence does not have consequential effect upon the spouse or children or other close family members who are dependent in one way or another upon the person being sentenced. I do not find that family hardship is made out independently in this case. I do accept, as I have already said, that worry about your family’s position, particularly its financial position, will weigh upon you if obliged to complete a custodial sentence, and I weigh that into your sentence.
[5]Markovic v R [2010] VSCA 105.
Relevant Sentencing Principles
80Turning now to the principles that I must have regard to on sentence. I am obliged to sentence you in a way that deters other people from behaving in similar ways, notwithstanding that a reduction in general deterrence, that has been argued for and is to some significant degree accepted by me, will operate. Moreover, you must be punished for what you did. Through me and this sentence the community denounces your offending behaviour; the community will not tolerate righteous and brutal threats being made against anyone, and most certainly not against people who are otherwise conducting ordinary business transactions. Given your prior history I do see some role in this sentence for some specific deterrence but I am encouraged by the work that you have commenced on your psychological state and I reduce your sentence accordingly. I will structure this sentence in a way that would support your rehabilitation, which, in the end, is how the community would best be protected.
81I have listened carefully to, and taken into account in your favour, the psychological material that was ultimately pressed on your plea. However, the other sentencing objectives in this case pull strongly in the other direction and the psychological material, while important, does not, and cannot, neutralise the other sentencing purposes in the circumstances. The psychological material provides something of an explanation and aids in mitigation but does not relieve me of my other obligations in this sentence.
Totality and Concurrency
82I have had regard to the principle of totality in arriving at your sentence and orders for cumulation. However, I do regard the criminal damage charge as a separate and serious event and there will not be total concurrency between the sentences for these offences.
COVID-19 Pandemic
83Turning now to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the community is widely vaccinated now and fewer restrictions govern our pandemic lives, the anxieties and uncertainty of our time persists. It is clear that for some time prisoners in Victoria have suffered the anxiety of not knowing if or when the virus will enter the prison system and the steps taken to control the virus’ movement in custody have meant harsher conditions for prisoners and it is likely they will do so for some time.
Regard to current sentencing practices
84I have had regard to current sentencing practices. Some cases were referred to in the course of the plea[6] and I have had regard to them and to others in this and in higher courts. No particular case is exactly like yours, and my job is to deliver individualised justice, but I have had regard to the general sentencing landscape.
[6]DPP v Fry 2018 VCC 1021 and DPP v Burton 2019 VCC 2087.
Disposition
85Turning now to the disposition. Mr Haddara, your counsel submitted that a sentence involving no further time in custody and a Community Corrections Order was open to me; counsel for the Director argued that while it was, ‘open to consider a combination sentence’, that this was not the right disposition in the circumstances. At one stage I had you assessed for a Community Corrections Order. I gave careful consideration to those submissions over the course of the several hearings and several months in fact in your case, and I did so in light of the psychological and the other evidence more recently tendered, but in the end, taking the matters in mitigation into account, I conclude that a sentence that did not involve some element of immediate incarceration would not do proper justice in all the circumstances, and in the circumstances of the seriousness of what you did. Ultimately, these are the sentences that I now impose on you, Mr Haddara.
86On Charge 1: extortion with threats to inflict injury, you are convicted and sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment.
87On Charge 2: damaging property, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of four months.
88Two months of the sentence on Charge 2 will be served cumulatively upon the sentence on Charge 1, making a total effective sentence of 15 months' imprisonment.
89I direct that you are to serve a minimum period of 10 months[7] before becoming eligible for parole.
[7] See addendum.
Pre-sentence detention
90Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you have served 2 days by way of pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as a period already served under this sentence.
Section 6AAA Reduction
91Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 I am obliged to state what sentence I would have imposed had you not pleaded guilty but been found guilty after trial, and I state that I would have imposed a period of imprisonment of 23 months’ with a non-parole period of 16 months’.
- - -
Addendum
The Court was reconvened very shortly after the sentencing hearing concluded for the purpose of amending the minimum non-parole period to 9 months.
0
3
0