Director of Public Prosecutions v Hole
[2022] VCC 1980
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-20-00137; CR-20-00138
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MARCUS HOLE & WER DAU |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HAWKINS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1 September 2022, 8 November 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 11 November 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Hole & Anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1980 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal Law – SENTENCING
Catchwords: Pleas of guilty – co-accused – 1 charge of recklessly cause serious injury in circumstances of gross violence – unprovoked group attack
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s15B, s323(1)(b), s465AAA(5); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s10(2)(a), s5(2G), s5, s18; Children, Youth and Families Act2005 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119; DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160; R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102; R v Worboyes [2021] VSCA 169
Sentence: Marcus Hole sentenced to a total effective sentence of 4 years’ and 2 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months; Wer Dau sentenced to a total effective sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years’ and 6 months’. 6AAA declaration of 6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr A. Buckland | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused Hole | Mr C. Tom | Stary Norton Halphen |
| For the Accused Dau | Mr J. Miller | James Dowsley & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1Marcus Hole and Wer Dau, you have both pleaded guilty to one charge of recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence.[1] This offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s15B
2You both admit your prior criminal histories.[2]
[2]Exhibit H; Exhibit I
Circumstances of Offending
3The circumstances of your offending are set out in the Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 25 August 2022,[3] the accuracy of which you accepted through your counsel.
[3]Exhibit A
4In the early morning of 3 March 2019 a group of seven males jointly conducted a series of unprovoked assaults on members of the public in Batman Park, Melbourne CBD. The charged offences relate to assaults carried out against the victim, TH, by both of you, other co-offenders and another associate. The other associate has already been dealt with in the Melbourne Children’s Court. I acknowledge TH and his family’s presence in court.
5TH, who was 21 years old at the time, suffered serious and life-threatening head injuries as a result of the assault.
6At the time of the offending Marcus Hole, you were 20 years old and Wer Dau, you were 19 years old. The other five males carrying out the assaults that night were aged between 17 and 20 years old at the time. There were also a number of other assault victims all aged between 21 and 24 years of age. Neither TH nor the other assault victims knew any of the offenders.
7I was provided with Snapchat footage of the incident which came from the mobile phone of a witness. The footage was brief, of poor quality and did not capture the entire incident. During the hearing this footage was slowed down, paused in places and annotated to allow the identification of the offenders and the victims.
8It is important to say that TH did nothing to justify or provoke the attack. The footage shows him surrounded by Mr Hole and Mr Dau, facing the other associate. While the other associate was grappling with and pulling TH, swinging a punch at the victim’s head, Mr Hole almost at the same time swung a right arm punch at TH’s head. There is a possibility Mr Hole’s punch did not connect, however, TH was struck by the other associate. He collapsed onto the ground with his head striking the concrete and he appeared to be unconscious as he fell. Witnesses described the loud sound his head made when it hit the ground.
9Mr Hole leant down and swung again towards TH in the head with his right hand whilst TH lay motionless on the ground. Mr Dau stepped in and kicked TH to the head with his right foot, also while TH remained motionless on the ground. All three offenders walked away.
10TH was unconscious at the scene with apparent head injuries. It was discovered he had bleeding and swelling to the brain that were life threatening. He was placed in an induced coma and remained in that coma in a critical and life-threatening state for 14 days.
11Dr Jason Schreiber of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine stated that TH’s injuries included multiple traumatic brain injuries with bleeding requiring emergency specialist interventions, multiple facial and skull fractures, soft tissue injuries, as well as various complications ranging from sepsis, limb weakness and fast heart rate to cognitive problems. Had TH not received the treatment in hospital, Dr Schreiber was of the opinion he would be dead due to the multiple brain injuries he sustained. The doctor identified many future implications including the risk of seizures, bone fractures that may not heal and TH’s risk of ongoing mental, psychological and cognitive problems. TH was also identified to likely have a diminished quality of life as the injuries impact on his work and social life including fitness to drive a car.
12By agreement this charge is put on the basis of complicity pursuant to s323(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958 and that it was a continuing offence. As a result the mandatory provisions (of a minimum non parole period of four years’ imprisonment) pursuant to s10(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) do not apply.
13As the offence with which you are both are charged is a category 1 offence, the Court must impose a sentence of imprisonment (other than a combination sentence).[4]
[4]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s5(2G)
14The prosecution concedes that it is possible that Mr Hole’s swing before TH fell to the ground may not have connected but that Mr Hole continued to assist and encourage in the commission of the offence. Whilst TH was incapacitated on the ground, Mr Dau kicked him to the head, and was therefore complicit in that he had intentionally assisted and encouraged the commission of the offence.
15The circumstances of the withdrawn affray charge are merely led as narrative to the offending.
16The “circumstances of the gross violence” for the purposes of s15B of the Crimes Act 1958 are that you were both in the company of two or more others, caused serious injury and that you continued to cause injury to another person after, or whilst the other person was incapacitated.[5]
[5]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss15B(2)(b), (e) and (f)
17In respect of your relative roles in this offending, I conclude that they are equivalent, and on the basis of the summary to which you plead, are broadly equivalent to the role played in the offending by the other associate who was sentenced in the Children’s Court.[6]
[6]Noting that he pleaded to a different summary and different offences
18Mr Hole, you have also pleaded guilty to the related summary offence of failing to provide information and/or assistance in relation to a computer or data storage device under warrant which has a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.[7]
[7]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s465AAA(5)
Nature & Gravity of Offending
19Mr Hole and Mr Dau, you both concede that the offending to which you have pleaded guilty is objectively serious and will have lasting consequences for the victim and all persons involved.
20Yours was an unprovoked, cowardly attack. You were part of a large group of men in the city for a night out on the town. For whatever reason you decided to satisfy your need for entertainment by setting upon others who were similarly just trying to enjoy a night out. Furthermore, in the Snapchat footage immediately after the assault you were seen in semi embrace, apparently celebrating the assault. Your behaviour is gratuitous and particularly abhorrent.
21The potentially fatal consequences of “one punch” were generally well known and commonly publicised at the time of this assault. The potential for serious injury resulting from an unconscious person falling to the ground and hitting their head on concrete, and subsequently being kicked to the head, ought to have been readily foreseen by you.
22I note that there is no evidence of premeditation or planning of your offending, it was of short duration, nor did you use a weapon during the assault.
23I have regard to each of your respective roles in the offending and the complicit basis upon which the offence is put.
Personal Circumstances
Marcus Hole
24Marcus Hole, you are now 24 years of age and you were 20 at the time of the offending. You are a young person for sentencing purposes.
25You were born and raised in the outer south eastern suburbs of Melbourne. You have an elder half-sister and are the eldest of five children born to both parents. You experienced a traumatic childhood and adolescence scarred by your father’s alcoholism. As the eldest, you shielded your younger siblings from your father’s violent outbursts, and were physically assaulted on a number of occasions.
26You attended four different primary schools and experienced bullying. You completed Year 12 at Chisholm Institute in Berwick and after leaving school, you commenced an electrical apprenticeship before working in roof tiling for eight months. You then worked in construction and as a tyre fitter. Upon your release from custody you aspire to obtain a Certificate IV in fitness and work as a personal trainer. Your ultimate aspiration is to mentor and work with troubled young men and open a gym with your partner.
27Your father died suddenly of a heart attack on your 22nd birthday, and your best friend passed away following a drug overdose a week later.
28You shared a close relationship with your uncle, who was a pillar of support following these losses. Tragically he also passed away from cancer in August 2021. You struggled to deal with grief and resorted to drinking alcohol to excess, as well as using Xanax, MDMA and cocaine.
29You first consumed alcohol at 16, and by 18 you were binge drinking on most weekends. You were ‘glassed’ in January 2019 requiring hospitalisation and plastic surgery. Following this incident your alcohol consumption increased significantly.
30In her report of 15 August 2022, psychologist, Gina Cidoni, concluded that you meet the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and substance use disorder. She notes that your generalised anxiety disorder links to past stress and trauma and opines that you are ‘triggered by certain behaviours because of PTSD. This causes irrational thinking, and he responds in erratic, reactive and impulsive ways. When heightened, he is unable to consider the long-term effects of his actions or control his behaviour, as the survival instinct of flight or fight takes over. This is linked to changes in the brain that create powerful emotions and symptoms.’[8]
[8] Exhibit D3, [72]
31Mr Tom on your behalf submits that at the time of this offending you were extremely intoxicated and refers to Ms Cidoni’s opinion, that in the context of your PTSD, the disinhibiting effect of alcohol ‘would have caused an attenuation of the anger and fight response’.[9] He stresses that in this context, these causative factors merely explain but do not excuse your offending conduct.
[9] Ibid
32The psychological assessment of Ms Cidoni relies largely upon somewhat contradictory self-reporting by you, Mr Hole, during a relatively brief assessment. I am somewhat troubled by paragraph 73 of Ms Cidoni’s report, which immediately precedes the quote referred to by your Counsel that I have just outlined above. It states: ‘The offending occurred when he was intoxicated following arguments where he became activated and participated in the attack upon the victim’.[10] Your explanation to Ms Cidoni appears to attempt to diminish your responsibility for your actions by contradicting the agreed summary of facts and footage in the incident which makes no mention of any such argument being a causative factor in your response. Nor does it accord with your “stated lack of memory” of the events.
[10] Ibid
33Marcus Hole, at the time of this offending you were on a community corrections order, which commenced on 13 September 2018, for trafficking cannabis and dishonesty offences. Conditions of that order included treatment and rehabilitation for drug dependency and mental health. In sentencing remarks for a consolidation of offences including burglary and unlawful assault, the learned Magistrate at Dandenong in August 2017 also noted on your criminal record about an earlier matter that you had done ‘exceptionally well during the Children’s Court deferral, completing a group conference involving the victim of a serious assault
Marcus Hole committed on 30 April 2016, gained an apprenticeship, ceased using ice. Addressed his relationship with alcohol, taken responsibility for setting a positive example for his younger siblings and become a regular participant at his local gym.’ Unfortunately that earlier recovery the magistrate noted that you had engaged in, did not endure to the point of this offending.34Mr Hole, I take into account the circumstances of hardship and deprivation you experienced during your childhood in sentencing you in accordance with the principles outlined by the High Court in Bugmy’s[11] case and the Court of Appeal in Marrah[12] and subsequent cases.[13] However, I note that the level of hardship and deprivation you experienced is not at the level experienced by the offenders in those cases, and that your moral culpability for your offending will not be similarly reduced. Ms Cidoni reports that you have intact intellectual ability and no test signs of cognitive dysfunction, and I will have regard to these factors, together with your mental health diagnoses, in weighing the appropriate degree to which your sentence is to be moderated.
[11]Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
[12]Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119
[13]Including, DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160
35Mr Hole, your mother, Cristi Barr, speaks of your remorse in her reference dated 5 August 2022 tendered to the Court.[14] She has observed you to have matured during the four years since your offending. She says that you are deeply sorry for the part you played and that you accept responsibility for your actions. She offers by way of insight, rather than excuse, the effect that your experience as a victim of a random act of violence, in which you were glassed in the face, had on you. She describes how you were hypervigilant and on edge when you went out in public.
[14] Exhibit D4
36Mr Hole, you have written a letter of apology to TH in the days prior to your plea hearing.[15] The level of remorse you express must be tempered in light of the timing of this apology. Reportedly, TH did not experience any great comfort from the receipt of your apology nearly four years after the incident.
[15] Exhibit D12
37Your experience as a victim of a random act of violence prior to this incident is a double edged sword to some extent. Coupled with the group conference you participated in in the Children’s Court when you met with the victim of an assault you were involved in at the age of 16, it is difficult to understand how you could have then become involved in this senseless attack on TH. Your actions are not satisfactorily explained by Ms Cidoni in my view.
38I note that others find that you have positively matured since this offending. Adam Drake of Balanced Choice Program believes that you will make a future leader to influence those around you to make positive changes.[16] Your former employer, Damian Perrins, speaks highly of your bright future;[17] your aunt, Samantha Watson, speaks of your experiences as a victim of bullying as a young person, and your remorse for these actions;[18] your girlfriend, Sandra Sancic, wants to build a life with you;[19] and your grandmother, Susan Barr, wants you to come back and live with her and assist her as she ages.[20]
[16] Exhibit D5
[17] Exhibit D8
[18] Exhibit D7
[19] Exhibit D6
[20] Exhibit D9
39Mr Hole, I note that you have participated in programs to reduce your risk of drug use in prison and to assist you upon release.[21] Ian Grasby, Acting Youth Development Coordinator at Port Phillip Prison, speaks of your personal growth and maturity and your positive role in prison in recent times.[22]
[21] Exhibit D10; Exhibit D11
[22]Exhibit D14
40Mr Hole, I accept that limbs 5 and 6 outlined in Verdins case[23] have some relevance to sentencing in your case, as Ms Cidoni opines that your ‘history of victimisation and PTSD means that he is easily triggered’, and consequently imprisonment would weigh more heavily upon you than others.[24]
[23] R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102
[24]Exhibit D3, [75]-[76]
Wer Dau
41Wer Dau, you were 19 at the time of offending and 23 at the time of the plea.
42Your parents are here in court supporting you today.
43You were born in South Sudan and came to Australia in 2004. You first lived in Launceston with your five siblings. Your family moved to Warrnambool and then to Officer. To your credit you completed Year 12 attaining a VCAL certificate despite disliking school. Your parents both work and your family regularly attends the Family Church in Dandenong where your uncle is a pastor. You still live with your family and enjoy good relations with them.
44You report an unremarkable childhood and deny experiencing any adverse life experiences.
45Since finishing school you have worked in a number of different jobs in the warehouse and logistics industries.
46You deny alcohol abuse, despite this being indicated in your offending. Your parents are abstinent and do not allow alcohol in the house. You began smoking cannabis in Year 10 and soon became dependent. You continue to regularly use cannabis.
47
You deny any history of mental health difficulties, and have not previously engaged with a psychologist or psychiatrist. You told forensic psychologist,
Marlese Bovenkerk,[25] that since your release on bail you have become withdrawn and socially isolated, commenced using Xanax and drink heavily. You have overdosed with Xanax resulting in memory difficulties. Mr Dau, you accept that your use of illicit substances is problematic and are willing to engage in alcohol and other drug counselling. Furthermore, you have completed an Alcohol and Other Drug course whilst on bail. You express ambivalence about engaging with mental health professionals in the future.
[25]Exhibit 1
48The principles in Verdins[26] and Bugmy[27] cases were not submitted to have application to you Mr Dau.
[26] R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102
[27] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
49Mr Dau, you accept that you will ultimately serve a term of imprisonment for this offending and Ms Bovenkerk describes that consequently you lack energy and motivation.
50Wer Dau, you have also experienced seizures in the past and have been referred to an epilepsy specialist. I am told that your most recent reports from your doctors are that you are to simply monitor your condition to see whether or not it progresses.
51You report a limited recollection of the night of the offence, stating to Ms Bovenkerk that you were ‘really drunk’[28] following binge drinking spirits with friends. You expressed remorse and regret for your actions to Ms Bovenkerk, and acknowledged that apologising to the victim would not change the outcome.
[28] Exhibit 1, [60]
52Psychometric testing by Ms Bovenkerk indicates that you suffer from extremely severe symptoms of depression and moderate levels of stress. You have moderately harmful alcohol problems with a high likely dependence on drugs. You failed to complete and return to the psychologist other tests she asked you to complete.
53Based on the assessments Ms Bovenkerk was able to complete, she indicates that you may suffer from sedative, hypnotic or anxiolytic use disorder, cannabis use disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, and at the time of offending you were suffering from alcohol intoxication.
54Ms Bovenkerk was unable to ascertain whether you, Mr Dau, were suffering from any impairment of mental functioning at the time of your offending. Rather your offending behaviour appeared to occur in the context of alcohol intoxication when under the influence of your peer group.
55Ms Bovenkerk concluded that you, Mr Dau, have several protective factors which lead her to conclude that you pose a low risk of violence relative to other male offenders.
56Mr Dau, I do note that you did acknowledge some level of wrongdoing in your record of interview, and assisted police with their investigations by providing them with your phone PIN and iTunes password, and also admitted that the clothing that you were wearing at the time of the offending was your clothing. This is indicative of some small level of your remorse. Apart from this, and the remarks of regret you made to Ms Bovenkerk, you offer no expression of remorse to your victim beyond this ultimate plea of guilty.
Rehabilitation
57
Marcus Hole, I am told that you have remained abstinent from alcohol use since February 2022 and are motivated to remain abstinent upon your release. You presented as similarly motivated in the past according to remarks noted in your criminal record which I have referred to above. I do recognise that rehabilitation from drugs often involves setbacks even in the most motivated individuals.
Ms Cidoni assessed you as posing a significant risk of reoffending but opined that your risks can be moderated by abstinence from substances and treatment for mental illnesses.[29]
[29]Ms Cidoni assigned Mr Hole as Risk Category 4, for which approximately 17% of persons assessed in that category reoffended violently within an average of 7 years
58Wer Dau, Ms Bovenkerk recommends that you engage in treatment aimed at improving your adaptive coping skills and treating your symptoms of anxiety and depression, as well as alcohol and other drug counselling.
59You are both still young men and rehabilitation is still a primary sentencing consideration for the Court. Successful rehabilitation is in the interests of both you and the broader community. You have significant family support, stable accommodation, and have developed insight and motivation to engage in treatment. I conclude that you both have reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation.
Impact on the Victim
60In his victim impact statement, TH describes his fear of going out in public, flashbacks, risk of epilepsy and his frustration about the ruination of his life’s plans.[30] He remains unable to work and requires assistance with many daily tasks. His mother, father and sister describe the trauma of the initial days post incident and the extensive rehab TH needed to learn to walk and feed himself again. He is unable to go for his truck licence due to his brain injuries and can still only work for 15 hours per week. There has also been a profound financial impact on his family who have had to take a lot of time away from work to care for TH.[31]
[30] Exhibit B
[31] Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F
Plea of Guilty
61Mr Hole, you entered a plea of guilty on 6 June 2022, being the day that your trial was listed to commence. The matter had proceeded through a three‑day contested committal and you were committed to stand trial in the County Court just before COVID struck. Your matter was accordingly delayed.
62Mr Dau, you were arrested in this matter on 18 June 2019 and spent 112 days on remand before bail was granted. As I have said, a contested committal proceeded for three days and ultimately you entered a plea which was listed for hearing in this court in April 2020. You then changed your plea, and due to COVID the matter could not be listed for trial until June of this year, when your matter again resolved just prior to commencement of the trial. Your actions protracted the finalisation of this matter for all concerned, particularly for the victim TH and his family. It also means that you fall to be sentenced as a 23 year old, rather than a 20 year old.
63Your pleas of guilty were not made early but I do take into account that they ultimately saved witnesses the stress of giving evidence in court and avoided the use of public resources that would have otherwise been spent in conducting a trial. These resources have been particularly stretched during the COVID‑19 pandemic and accordingly I take the utilitarian value of your plea of guilty into account and you will receive an actual and palpable amelioration of your sentence.[32]
[32]R v Worboyes [2021] VSCA 169
64I acknowledge that you both spent time in custody during the pandemic, and have experienced lockdowns, restrictions in programs and visits, the combined effect of which has been extremely difficult and isolating.
65Denunciation, just punishment, general deterrence and the protection of the community are relevant sentencing considerations in this case. I accept that having regard to both your youth that the deterrence and denunciation warrant less prominence, and rehabilitation greater prominence than might be the case if you were sentenced when you were older.
66An extended period of supported transition into the community on parole is appropriate, in my view, to assist your rehabilitation and to protect the community.
Criminal History
67Marcus Hole, as I have said, at the time of this offending you were on a community corrections order and you had Magistrates’ Court priors for dishonesty, violence and driving matters, together with relevant Children’s Court priors.
68Wer Dau, at the time of this offence you had a single prior matter on your criminal record, which resulted in an adjourned undertaking to be of good behaviour, for theft of a motor vehicle and unlicensed driving. You were on this undertaking at the time that you committed this offence.
Parity
69The principal of parity or “equal justice” requires consistency in sentencing of co‑offenders. However the Court must assess you each as individuals and make a comparative analysis of your respective culpability and of your circumstances.
70Mr Hole and Mr Dau, I have concluded that your roles in the offending cannot be differentiated from each other and are similar to those of your associate, ‘DW’.
71On 21 February 2020, DW was sentenced by the Melbourne Children’s Court to four years detention in a Youth Justice Centre after pleading guilty in relation to the same incident, but to charges of affray and to intentionally (as compared to your charges of recklessly) causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence. DW had relevant priors for violent offending, including assault and recklessly causing injury; was on parole for offences including armed robbery; and was on a Youth Supervision Order at the time of committing these offences. He has a far more extensive criminal history than do either of you. I note, however, that as a child he was sentenced under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic) which imposes a different sentencing regime from that which applies to you, therefore the principal of parity has limited application as between the two of you, being sentenced as adult offenders, and DW.
72The four other co-offenders were not charged for the offending relating to TH and their cases were finalised in the summary stream.
73Mr Hole, your prior criminal record is far more significant than that of Mr Dau and your offending is aggravated by the fact that you were on a CCO at the time of this offending. Mr Dau, you were on an adjourned undertaking to be of good behaviour at the time. Mr Hole, your sentence will attract some mitigation in accordance with the principles in Bugmy[33] and Verdins,[34] but your sentence will include a degree of cumulation by virtue of your failure to provide your passwords and details to allow police to access your phones, whereas Mr Dau assisted authorities in this regard.
[33] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
[34] R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102
Current Sentencing Practices
74In sentencing you I must have regard to a range of matters such as the seriousness of your offending, your culpability for it and your personal circumstances. I must balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interests the community clearly has in seeking to ensure, as far as possible, that offenders are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. I must impose a sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence, considering the circumstances. The sentence must be no more than is necessary to satisfy those various objectives of sentencing.
75I have taken into account the relevant sentencing principles referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and despite an exhaustive search neither counsel have been able to draw the court’s attention to any significantly comparable cases similar on the facts to this offence. I have had regard to other somewhat dissimilar cases, which turn on different factual scenarios where offenders have been charged with the offence to which you have both pleaded guilty.
Sentence
76MARCUS HOLE, I sentence you as follows:
77On charge 1, recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, you are convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
78On the related summary charge, which I will refer to as charge 2, fail to provide information to access data on your mobile phone, you are convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
79I order that two months of the sentence on charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence of four years in charge 1. That is, your total effective sentence is four years and two months.
80I order that you serve two years and eight months before being eligible for parole.
81I declare that you have 467 days of pre‑sentence detention which I reckon as served.
82WER DAU, I sentence you as follows:
83On charge 1, recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, you are convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
84That is, the total effective sentence for you is four years imprisonment.
85I order that you serve two years and six months before being eligible for parole.
86I reckon as served 112 days of pre‑sentence detention.
Section 6AAA Declaration
87Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had you both pleaded not guilty and been found guilty after trial, I would have sentenced you to a term of six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years.
Ancillary Orders
88I make the forfeiture orders sought by consent.
- - -
5
0