Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones
[2022] VCC 1446
•26 July 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR 21-01841
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| KAYNE LEE JONES |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE HOLDING |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 July 2022 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 July 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Jones |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1446 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence.
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – criminal record – two charges – summary offences - conduct endangering persons – causing injury recklessly – failing to render assistance after an accident - using an unregistered motor vehicle on a highway – commit an indictable offence whilst on bail – serious offending – not suitable for a CCO – drugs – rehabilitation – denunciation – potential for serious injury – licence disqualification – psychological reports – aggravating features.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) - Road Safety Act1986 (Vic).
Cases Cited:Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 - R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 10.
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. Ordered to serve a minimum of 2 years and 3 months before being eligible for parole.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms T. Skvortsova | Abby Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr C. Farrington | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1Kayne Lee Jones, you have pleaded guilty to two charges on
Indictment M10511523. These charges are:a)One charge of conduct endangering persons contrary to s 23 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Charge 1); and
b)One charge of causing injury recklessly contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Charge 2).
2You have also pleaded guilty to related summary offences of failing to render assistance after an accident (Summary Charge 3); using an unregistered motor vehicle on a highway (Summary Charge 5); and commit an indictable offence whilst on bail (Summary Charge 6).
3The circumstances of your offending are contained in an amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 8 July 2022,[1] which was exhibited on your plea. You did not dispute the facts as set out in that opening. I will briefly summarise the circumstances of your offending.
[1] Exhibit A on the Plea.
Circumstances of your offending
4The victims in this matter are Ali Samimi and his girlfriend, Anahira Romana-Curry. Both of these victims were unknown to you on the day of your offending.
5At approximately 11.30 am on Thursday, 11 March 2021, Mr Samimi and
Ms Romana-Curry were arguing on a grassed area outside your unit on Churchill Avenue in Ascot Vale. You started shouting down at Mr Samimi and the two of you began arguing. You told Mr Samimi you were ‘coming down’.6Mr Samimi and Ms Romana-Curry walked away from the area, into a car park. You exited the building and met them in the car park area. You and Mr Samimi continued to argue with each other.
7Ms Romana-Curry noticed that you had a set of car keys in your hand.
8The argument de-escalated and Mr Samimi and Ms Romana-Curry walked away in a northerly direction along the footpath on Churchill Avenue.
9You entered your vehicle, a 2004 silver Ford Falcon sedan, which was parked in the car park behind your unit. You exited the car park and drove in the same direction as the two victims.
10As you approached the victims, you veered sharply to the left and mounted the kerb and drove onto the footpath in the direction of the two victims.
11Ms Romana-Curry screamed and jumped out of the way.
Mr Samimi heard Ms Romana-Curry scream and turned around to see you driving straight towards him. Mr Samimi tried to jump and that was the last thing he remembers.12Ms Romana-Curry saw your vehicle hit Mr Samimi and saw him flying into the air before landing on the back of his head. Mr Samimi was struck by the left-hand side of your car and his head hit the vehicle's windscreen causing it to shatter. He was thrown several metres through the air before landing on the nature strip. Driving the car in this manner constitutes Charge 2 - recklessly causing injury to Mr Samimi and Charge 1 - engaging in conduct that placed persons in danger of serious injury.
13You then drove away onto Wingate Avenue. CCTV captured you travelling west along Wingate Avenue before turning south to cut through a series of car parks leading back to Churchill Avenue. You were then seen walking along Wingate Avenue towards the crime scene. Your failure to stop at the scene where the car you were driving struck Mr Samimi is the conduct that constitutes Summary Offence 3 - falling to render assistance after an accident. The fact that the car was unregistered constitutes Summary Offence 5 - using an unregistered motor vehicle. The fact that you were on bail at the time of committing the indictable offences constitutes Summary Offence 6 - committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.
14On arrival at the scene, police observed Mr Samimi was conscious and he had blood on his face. Mr Samimi was assisted by paramedics who transported him to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. At the hospital, doctors noted swelling to the right hand, some pain in the wrist, tenderness and swelling to the right knee and ankle, and the presence of facial abrasions.
15Ms Romana-Curry identified you and provided police with your address. She also correctly identified you from a photo board. CCTV from a neighbouring property captured the incident in its entirety.
16Your vehicle was located outside 49 Churchill Avenue later that day. Police observed significant damage to the windscreen. You were arrested at your home at approximately 6.10 pm on 11 March 2021.
17You were interviewed and gave police a false version of the events including that:
a) You had seen your vehicle two days ago and had not driven it for weeks;
b) Your vehicle had a single set of keys which you kept in the glove box as the other set had been stolen previously;
c) You had taken your partner to do a urine screen earlier that day in Footscray and then went to Moonee Ponds to do some shopping. You drove your partner's car and got home at about 1:00 pm;
d) You saw police at the scene of the incident and wondered what was going on; and
e) When shown a photo of the smashed windscreen, you said you had never seen that damage before.
18Police executed a warrant at your address and located a Ford car key in the kitchen area.
19Police re-commenced the interview. You told police that you now think your car must have been stolen two days ago. When asked why you had the key to the Ford in your kitchen you told police that the person who stole it from you came back and returned it.
20You were the registered owner of the Ford Falcon Sedan and the registration of the vehicle was suspended from 10 March 2021.
21The victim, Mr Samimi, discharged himself against medical advice the following day, 12 March 2021, and was subsequently treated at the Northern Hospital with pain medication.
22Neither of the two victims have taken the opportunity to provide the court with victim impact statements.
Personal circumstances
23I turn to your personal circumstances. Your counsel, Mr Farrington, has provided a written outline of submissions,[2] and tendered on your behalf a psychological report from Ms Gina Cidoni,[3] and a neuropsychological report from Dr Matt Treeby.[4] These reports and submissions detail your background.
[2] Exhibit 1 on the Plea.
[3] Exhibit 2 on the Plea.
[4] Exhibit 3 on the Plea.
24You were born in April 1982. You were 38 at the time of this offending. Sadly, your mother died of a heroin overdose when you were only four years of age. Your biological father was not involved in your upbringing and you only learnt of his identity when you were about 15 or 16 years old. You apparently made contact with him at that age but your father was not interested in developing a relationship with you.
25From the age of four you were raised by your maternal grandparents. As a result of your mother's drug abuse, Child Protection Services were involved with you from a young age. Your grandparents lived in a Department of Housing property in Heidelberg West and relocated to Corio in your adolescence. You told Dr Treeby that your grandfather was a heavy drinker who would yell and scream every time he got drunk.
26You completed primary school in Heidelberg. However, you always struggled to maintain attention and concentration in the classroom. You then attended Banksia Latrobe Secondary College where you completed Year 8 and then attended Flinders Park Secondary College until Year 10. Your schooling was difficult and you were suspended on a number of occasions because of fighting and behavioural issues.
27Upon leaving school, you commenced an apprenticeship to become a plumber with an uncle. However, you had already begun to use illicit substances and your work became disordered and you quit the apprenticeship after two years. You told Dr Treeby that you had large periods of unemployment between the ages of 19 and 29 in the context of heavy illicit substance use and repeated periods of incarceration.
28You first tried cannabis at the age of 14 and were smoking daily by the age of 16. You commenced using heroin intravenously when you were 18 and you told Dr Treeby, 'I got hooked quickly'. You used heroin daily during your early to mid-20s before you were commenced on a methadone program at the age of 27. You also used amphetamines on two occasions before you were 25.
29Both of the psychological assessments tendered on your behalf diagnose you as having a substance (opioid and cannabis) use disorder. Unfortunately, as is often seen in this court, your substance use disorder appears associated with a long criminal history. Your criminal history runs to some 20 pages. You were first before the Geelong Magistrates' Court in the Year 2000 when you were aged 18, and you have had regular court appearances in the Magistrates' Court, and subsequent appeals in the County Court, in respect of numerous charges of burglary, aggravated burglary, various dishonesty offences, drug offences and some charges of assault. In 2009, you received an aggregate sentence of 15 months' imprisonment in respect of charges of theft and drive in a manner dangerous. In 2004 you were sentenced to two months' imprisonment for recklessly causing injury, with that sentence being suspended. You subsequently breached the suspended sentence. Your criminal history reveals your most recent conviction was for offences of burglary, theft and obtaining property by deception in 2018. You have in the past received a number of community based orders suspended sentences and periods of imprisonment mainly for offences of dishonesty.
30Your motor traffic criminal history has also been placed before me and you have received motor traffic convictions of driving while suspended, unlicensed driving and a dangerous driving charge that also appears on your criminal history.
31You have been in a long term relationship with a partner for the past 15 years and have two sons from that relationship, aged nine and six. One of your sons has been diagnosed with ADHD and the other has autism spectrum disorder. The children remain in your partner's care and you told Dr Treeby that since 2020 you and your partner have been required by DHS to complete regular urine drug screens. You told psychologist that since 2019 your heroin use has been controlled by a methadone program and you are being currently prescribed
80 milligrams of methadone daily.32You told Ms Gina Cidoni that you suffered a serious work accident in 2017. However, it appears that Dr Treeby obtained medical records that indicate that this accident actually occurred in 2016. You told Ms Cidoni that you began work in 2015 for a company named NSM in Brunswick as a forklift driver. The forklift rolled and crushed your right leg. You were hospitalised for three months. As a result of this injury you were told at the time that there was a possibility that you might have to have your leg amputated. Fortunately, this did not eventuate and you recovered sufficiently from the accident to be able to be
re-employed by a shipping company called ‘Tasman Logistics’. You worked between January 2019 and May 2020, unloading shipping containers. You lost this work when the pandemic caused a downturn in the importation of goods.33Both of the psychologists have administered numerous psychological tests and have diagnosed you as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of this serious accident where you almost lost your leg.
34Dr Treeby also states the following from a neuropsychological assessment:
'Formal neuropsychological assessment indicates that he has a mild acquired brain injury due to long term heavy substance use, (cannabis, heroin and benzodiazepines).[5] His brain injury has resulted in a learning and memory impairment and executive dysfunction in the areas of unstructured idea generation, verbal problem solving and divided attention'.
[5] Exhibit 3 on the Plea at [65] (emphasis in original).
35I have read both Ms Cidoni and Dr Treeby's reports carefully but refer only to the parts of their reports necessary to explain my sentencing reasons.
36Ms Cidoni expressed the view that you had a, 'disturbance of self-identity and some mile antisocial traits'. Part of her report reads as follows:
'He is very challenged with his memory function. The response pattern is suggestive of poor decision making, low reasoning and problem solving abilities. Other relevant aspects of cognitive impairment include an inability to understand the consequences of actions and disinhibition.
The major complaints and behaviours reflected in testing and the overall assessment parallel the following clinical syndrome diagnosis according to the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition:
- post-traumatic stress disorder with anxiety;
- persistent depressive disorder; and
- substance use disorder in enforced remission.
PTSD arose from the work accident in 2017 [sic], that caused the major maladjustment.
The interplay between his low intellect, his emotion and cognitions have a causal link to the behaviours demonstrated at the time of offending in that they impaired his judgment and his ability to reason, make rational decisions and control his behaviours.
The neurobiological or fight response in PTSD occurs where re-traumatisation occurs – (sic) when an environmental cue related to the trauma (the collision) triggers a fight, flight or freeze response. Mr Jones' immediate response was flight…
Purportedly, he was not using heroin at the time of offending and he was on methadone maintenance. Analgesic doses of methadone impact cognitive task performance and can additionally produce mild impairment effects on driving.
I am concerned that he will struggle with lengthy imprisonment in surroundings that are tense and unpredictable. This will exacerbate untreated symptoms with the possible emergence of other maladaptive behaviours and it will worsen his mental state and trajectory. Treatment is not as readily available in this setting, which will limit intervention potentials'.[6]
[6] Exhibit 2 on the Plea at [8-0], [82]-]83], [86]-[88] [90].
37Dr Treeby, after administering a number of psychological and neurological tests agreed with the diagnosis of PTSD. He stated that 'taken together, my impression is that Mr Jones meets full DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder attributable to his accident'.[7] He also concluded you fell into the low/average range of an overall measure of your intellectual function.[8]
[7] Exhibit 3 on the Plea at [60].
[8] Ibid [64].
38He stated that your ‘executive dysfunction’ would compromise your ability to make reasoned and appropriate judgments in some circumstances and that your history of polysubstance use was clearly problematic. He opined that PTSD typically compromised responsibility to effectively regulate anger and stress, which in turn can compromise the ability to engage in calm and reasoned decision making when emotionally heightened and during times of distress. However, he also sensibly, in my view, stated:
'Cognitive impairment and mental health factors cannot entirely account for Mr Jones' offending behaviour, which I note is versatile and dates back to 2001. He clearly has longstanding problems with conforming to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours and my impression is that he has Cluster B (antisocial) personality traits, which help explain his repeated contacts with the criminal justice system throughout adulthood to date. Mr Jones presents with multiple risk factors for recidivism, including a history of violence, substance use problems, Cluster B personality traits antisocial, and prior breaches of community based orders. He also presents with some degree or executive dysfunction, he has poor ability to cope with stress and he has difficulties with impulsivity and emotion regulation. On these bases he is regrettably deemed to be moderate to high risk or reoffending in the longer term. His risk of reoffending would be reduced, certainly not eliminated, should his mental health and substance use problems be appropriately addressed…
While Mr Jones does have an acquired brain injury resulting in executive dysfunction, there was no clear indication that he would find serving a custodial term in a routine and structured environment to be more onerous than someone in good health. Individuals with executive dysfunction do often respond well to the inherent structure within the prison environment once the routine has been learnt. With that said, he does have ongoing mental health difficulties in the form or post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, which may compromise his ability to manage adversity in the custodial setting'…[9]
[9] Ibid [72]-[73], [76].
Submissions
39The prosecution point to the seriousness of your offending and the fact that two victims were placed in danger with one of them suffering an actual injury and the other being placed in danger of serious injury.
40They point to your criminal history and the need for the sentence to publicly denounce your conduct and take account of the need for both general and specific deterrence.
41Your plea to Charge 1 is an acknowledgement that you drove your motor vehicle in circumstances where you foresaw that a probable consequence of your driving was to place another person in an appreciable risk of serious injury. Such an offence carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. It is relevant that you have a prior conviction for dangerous driving, which has a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment and for which you were sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment as an aggregate sentence.
42Your counsel, Mr Farrington, concedes that the seriousness of your offending can only result in a sentence of imprisonment. In his submission, he relied upon your plea of guilty, which whilst not entered at the earliest point in time was nevertheless entered at a relatively early stage. There is no dispute that your plea of guilty has saved the expense of a contested trial and the victims having to come to court to give evidence.
43You are also entitled to an additional utilitarian benefit as a result of the plea being entered during the period of the pandemic. There are two aspects to this additional utilitarian benefit: You have relieved the significant backlog of cases in this court; and it is accepted that imprisonment served in the time period of the pandemic is likely to be more harsh than at other times because of the restrictions imposed by correctional authorities in an effort to contain the pandemic. I will take account of these additional utilitarian benefits that are conferred by your plea of guilty in the sentence I impose.
44It was not submitted that your plea was to be regarded as accompanied by significant feelings of remorse in light of you telling Ms Cidoni that you accidentally drove towards the victims.
45Your counsel, Mr Farrington, also relies to some extent upon your most difficult background and the fact that your parents were drug addicts. Your father played practically no role in your upbringing and your mother tragically died when you were a very young child. Mr Farrington conceded that your background was, 'not a Bugmy[10] type situation', in reference to the High Court case of that name, but that nevertheless your background has been very difficult. I accept that your background is relevant to the sentencing exercise in the sense that you have not had the benefit of stable and loving guidance from committed parents. You developed a drug addiction at a very young age, no doubt in part as a consequence of these very difficult circumstances. This to some extent reduces the moral culpability of your offending.
[10]Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.
46Mr Farrington during the plea hearing explained the difficulties you have encountered in terms of the restrictions on your visitation rights as a consequence of the pandemic. Tendered at the plea hearing was a letter from your partner and mother of your two sons. She describes how your two boys love you and miss you and how difficult it is for them to see you only by way of ‘Zoom’ calls. Mr Farrington described how difficult it was for your partner in caring for the children without you, given their particular health issues.
47Also tendered on your plea was a letter from your grandfather, Ronald Jones, that states that he and your grandmother are both 76 years of age and in poor health. He states that you have been of considerable help to them. I accept that based upon the letters from your partner and your grandfather that you are a loving partner and devoted grandson and that you will find the period of imprisonment that I must impose as more burdensome because of your inability to assist in the care of your family members.
48However, there are other sentencing considerations. Your long history of offending and the manner in which you committed these offences require me to regard community protection as a very relevant sentencing consideration. I accept Dr Treeby's assessment that your risk of reoffending is ‘moderate to high in the longer term’.
49Mr Farrington sensibly does not submit that your PTSD and ABI engages the first limb of the well-known case of Verdins[11] in relation to the indictable offences but submits that it is engaged in relation to the summary offence of failing to render assistance. I am prepared to accept this submission although it is not likely to affect the ultimate sentence to any significant extent given the maximum penalty for that offence.
[11]R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 10.
50There are, in my view, too many variables in terms of your prior drug use and antisocial personality traits for me to find that your PTSD and other mental health conditions had a, 'causal link', or realistic connection to the behaviours that constitute Charge 1 and 2 on the indictment, despite the opinion of
Ms Cidoni. I note that she makes no reference at all in her report to the fact that your account to her as to how the offending occurred, is not consistent with your plea of guilty. I also note that you have a significant criminal history including prior convictions for assault and dangerous driving before the forklift accident in the context where she attributes the forklift accident as the cause of your PTSD.51There seems to be some divergence between Ms Cidoni and Dr Treeby as to how your mental health will be impacted by a period of imprisonment. Whilst I accept Dr Treeby's assessment that individuals with executive dysfunction often respond well to a structured environment, I am also of the view that your PTSD and other mental health conditions will make imprisonment more burdensome for you. I will take that into account in moderating to some extent the sentence that I impose.
52You are, of course, not to be punished again in respect of your prior convictions but they are relevant in me assessing your moral culpability for this offending. I regard this offending as a relatively serious example of this type of offence and I am of the view that your moral culpability for this offence was high. During the plea hearing, I viewed the CCTV footage that depicts the movement of the vehicle you were driving. It clearly depicts the car veering off the road in the direction of the two victims who at that time were walking away from you. Whatever altercation you had with Mr Samimi, it was over and the victims were walking away, completely unaware that you were about to drive towards them. It was, in my view, fortunate that neither of the victims was seriously injured.
53During the plea hearing there was discussion concerning the interplay between the two charges. The prosecution did not suggest that either charge was more serious than the other. It was submitted that whilst the same driving conduct was relied upon in respect of each charge, the charges had different elements. The risk that was posed to Ms Romana-Curry was an aspect of the criminality that was not included in Charge 2. As a result there should be some cumulation between the sentences imposed upon both charges. Mr Farrington conceded that there should be some cumulation of the sentences imposed but that I should not lose sight of the fact that it was the same driving conduct that was relied upon in respect of both of the indictable offences.
Mr Farrington also correctly submitted that I must impose a sentence that takes account of the principle of totality. I must assess the overall conduct involved in all of the offending and ensure that the total effective sentence is proportionate to your overall offending.54I am also of the view that it is an aggravating feature of the offending that you were on bail when you committed these offences. Both the prosecution and defence agreed that it is appropriate to reflect that aggravating factor in ordering that part of the sentence imposed for the summary offence of committing an offence whilst on bail, should be cumulatively served with the other sentences.
55Your counsel submitted that having served almost a year of pre-sentence detention, 'The sentence which goes beyond the time which has already been served… should focus on the rehabilitative needs of the accused'. Mr Farrington submitted that despite your history and ongoing problems, you are a good worker and currently have a forklift licence. You have family support and could obtain employment upon release because of your work history and the current need for forklift drivers. He submitted that various purposes of sentencing in this case could appropriately be met by a combination of imprisonment and a CCO.
56I indicated that whilst I was prepared to have you assessed for suitability for such an order, you should be under no misapprehension that I had in any way concluded that a combination sentence was the appropriate sentence. Since the plea hearing I have received an assessment from an assessing Community Correction Officer that states that based on your previous history of orders you are assessed as unsuitable for a community correction order. I should indicate that whilst there might be some negative descriptions of you in that pre-sentence assessment, I do not regard it as appropriate to have any regard to the contents of that report other than in relation to me forming the view that a combination sentence is not an appropriate sentence in this case.
57During the plea hearing there was some discussion of the prosecution submission that there should be an order made against your licence as a consequence of this offending. The prosecution corrected their written submissions which incorrectly asserted that Charge 1 and 2 were, 'serious motor vehicle offences', as defined in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). As there was no evidence of you being under the influence of drugs or alcohol when committing those offences these charges were not so defined. However, the prosecution correctly submitted that s 28(1)(b) of the Road Safety Act1986 (Vic) conferred a discretion upon the court to suspend or cancel your driving licence and impose a period of disqualification in respect of any offence, 'in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle'. Important sentencing considerations in determining whether your licence should be cancelled and whether you should be disqualified for a period of time from applying to be relicensed are: the seriousness of the offences and how related they are to your driving of a motor vehicle; punishment and denunciation of your conduct; protection of the community; and your prospects of rehabilitation. In relation to your rehabilitation I note that at the plea hearing, I raised the question of whether employment as a forklift driver was necessarily prohibited if your driving licence was cancelled. Since the plea hearing your counsel has helpfully sent an email to the court indicating that his enquiries reveal that one can maintain a forklift licence despite having no licence to drive a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, in the same email it is asserted that whilst in custody you have been able to produce artworks that have been sold and led to you having a body of savings that you intend to use to purchase a motor vehicle upon your release. It is submitted that having a licence will assist you in travelling to any place of employment, which will in turn increase your prospects of rehabilitation. Whilst I accept that it may be the case that having a licence may make it easier for you to obtain employment, your offending involved a very serious transgression of the obligations of a responsible driver. The commission of your offence directly involved grossly irresponsible driving that, in my view, must be denounced and punished by cancellation of all driving licences, coupled with a period of disqualification from obtaining a licence.
58The purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, deterrence, both specific and general, rehabilitation, denunciation of your actions, and the protection of the community. In my view, the sentence for this offending must incorporate both general and specific deterrence and considerations of protection of the community. The sentence must not be crushing upon you and I accept that a period of parole during which time your drug use can be monitored will be in the community's interest and is likely to assist with your rehabilitation. No doubt your prospects of rehabilitation will be much greater if you can continue to successfully battle your longstanding drug addiction.
59Taking into account the various considerations in your case and considering all the material placed before me, I impose the following sentence:
on Charge 2 of recklessly causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to two years and four months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence;
on Charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to two years and four months' imprisonment. I order that 10 months of this sentence is to be served cumulatively on Charge 2 and all other sentences imposed this day;
on Charge 3 of failing to render assistance, you are convicted and sentenced to two days' imprisonment;
on the Summary Charge 6 of committing an offence whilst on bail, you are convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. One month of this sentence is to be served cumulatively upon Charge 2 and all other sentences imposed this day;
on Charge 5 of using an unregistered motor vehicle, you are convicted and fined $200.00.
60That makes a total effective sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment. I order that you serve a minimum of two years and three months before being eligible for parole.
61I declare pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) that you have already served 503 days of pre-sentence detention pursuant to this sentence, and order that this be entered into the records of the court.
62Pursuant to s 28(1)(b) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic), I cancel all motor driving licences and disqualify you from obtaining a licence for a period of two years from today.
63Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act1991 (Vic), I declare that had you not pleaded guilty to these charges I would have imposed a total effective sentence of four years and seven months with a period of three years and four months to be served before being eligible for parole.
64Thank you. I will adjourn the court.
- - -
0
2
0