Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones

[2022] VCC 1109

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-22-00030
CR-22-00942

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MICHAEL ROBERT JONES

‑‑‑

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 June 2022 (Sentence Indication)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 July 2022 (Plea and Sentence)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v JONES
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	2022 VCC 1109

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
‑‑‑

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE

Catchwords:              Guilty plea – persistent contravention of family violence intervention order – common assault – make threat to kill – make threat the destroy property – make threat to inflict serious injury – family violence offending – sentence indication provisions   

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958 s 20, s 21, s 198; Family Violence Protection Act 2008 s 125A

Cases Cited:Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169

Sentence: 31 months imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 19 months. S 6AAA: 3 years and 8 months imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 2 years and 7 months imprisonment

‑‑‑

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	S Davison	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	N Rolfe	Rolfe Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR:

1Michael Jones, you have pleaded guilty on Indictment N10701933 to a charge of persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order. The maximum penalty for that offence is 5 years' imprisonment. You also pleaded guilty to two related summary offences of contravene conduct condition of bail and commit indictable offence on bail. The maximum penalty for those is 3 months' imprisonment.

2On Indictment M11139186 you have pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault - 5 years' imprisonment; a charge of make threat to kill - 10 years' imprisonment); two charges of make threat to destroy property for which the maximum penalty is 5 years' imprisonment, and a charge of make threat to inflict serious injury - 5 years' imprisonment.[1]

[1] The accused also pleaded guilty on Indictment M11139186 to the related summary offence 5, contravening a conduct condition of bail

3You were born in February 1980.  At the time of the offending, you were aged 41 years and worked for Rapid Cold Airconditioning Pty Ltd.  You are now aged 42.  You were living at an address in Forrest Hill with your wife and children.

4Your wife, Tammy Keating[2], is the primary victim in this matter.  She was born in October 1981.  She was 39 years old at the time of your offending.  Your children are Reilly[3], then aged 15; Mary[4], then aged 11; Jack[5], then 9; Sienna[6], then 7; Robert[7], then 5, who is also a direct victim; and Beatrice[8], then 2 years of age. Your wife also has a son from a previous relationship named Bert[9] Since this offending there has been another child born.

[2] A pseudonym

[3] A pseudonym

[4] A pseudonym

[5] A pseudonym

[6] A pseudonym

[7] A pseudonym

[8] A pseudonym

[9] A pseudonym

5The offending is summarised in the two Sentence Indication Openings, and I will briefly summarise the circumstances. Both of the Openings were exhibited on the plea, and I incorporate those into my reasons for sentence.

Background of the offending

6You first met Ms Keating in 2005 in South Australia.  At that time, she was a single mother to Bert then aged 2.  You began a relationship and got married not long after that. In 2008, you moved to Victoria for work.  At that stage Ms Keating remained in South Australia, however you would visit, and Ms Keating became pregnant in 2008.  Ultimately, she moved to Victoria with you but as I understand it you and she moved back and forth from time to time.

7You have one prior conviction in South Australia in December 2006 for family violence offending.  I am told that Ms Keating was the victim in that previous incident.  That offending must have been relatively serious. It attracted a sentence of 10 months, suspended upon you entering a bond for two years with a condition that you attend corrections and undertake a domestic violence program.  The offences were threatening to cause harm, common assault on a family member, damage property, and carry offensive weapon.

8The Prosecution Opening suggests by way of context that you did not allow Ms Keating to tell her parents she was moving to Victoria or that she was pregnant and that you made contact between her and her parents difficult.  

9Your eldest children, Bert and Reilly, started school in Victoria in 2008.  Eventually, you suggested they be home schooled. In 2010 you moved the family back to South Australia to be closer to your mother. Sometime later, you left your job and moved back to Melbourne and Ms Keating moved with you.

10Ms Keating said that during the relationship you never allowed her to work or have a car, that you controlled her life and made threats of violence or that she would lose the children. This is all put by the prosecution as context to the offending. I indicate I don’t punish you for that, but it does place in context the offending for which I must deal with you.

Offending on Indictment M11139186

11On 14 July 2021, your son, Reilly, was interviewed by Police and described an incident in mid to late 2020 where you strangled and choked your son, Robert who was then 5 years old.  Reilly shared a bedroom with his older brother, Bert, and younger brothers.

12Just before 7.00pm one evening you were putting Robert to bed early.  Reilly was reading a book at a desk in the hallway.  This desk was about a metre from the bedroom door.  Reilly could see what was happening in the bedroom.  He saw his younger brother refusing to go to bed, repeatedly hopping out of bed and climbing down the bunkbed ladder.  You became angry. You started shouting at Robert to get back into bed.  He climbed the ladder and got into bed.  Reilly then saw you choke Robert; he said Robert's face was going red from the choking, and he was struggling to breathe.  After one to two minutes, you left the bedroom without saying a word.  Reilly went into the bedroom and observed handprints on Robert's neck.  He stayed and talked with Robert in the bedroom; Robert wanted Reilly to stay because he was scared. That’s the basis of common assault which is charge one on Indictment M11139186.

13The next incident on this indictment happened on the 18 May 2021 at approximately 6.30pm. Beatrice, Robert and Sienna were upstairs while Mary and Jack were at ballet class.  You and Ms Keating were arguing about financial issues.  You were following each other up and down the hallway downstairs.

14You said that you were not going to give her access to any money and the kids would have to miss out on milk, butter and ballet, saying: "I'm taking control of the money and for 3 months I am banning you and the kids from any dairy products".

15You threatened her, saying, "You're not worth anything; you don't matter.  It doesn't matter if you're dead or alive.  I'll kill your dad; do you want me to abort the kids that are here?  You're the problem, everyone knows you're the problem." That’s the basis of Charge 2, threat to kill against Ms Keating’s father.

16Ms Keating went upstairs to seek the assistance of her two eldest children, Bert and Reilly, and then went back downstairs with them to you in the attached garage.  The argument continued in the garage, where Ms Keating’s father’s car was parked.  This car was purchased for her use because you did not let her have one.

17You became angry about Ms Keating having this car and started arguing about it.  Ms Keating and the children tried reasoning with you, but you did not respond.  You picked up a can of petrol and began pouring it all over the middle of the garage floor next to the vehicle in front of Ms Keating, Bert and Reilly.  Both Bert and Reilly heard you yell something to the effect of, "I will cover it in petrol and set it on fire, I'll just blow it up". This is the basis of Charge 3 – threat to destroy or damage property.

18You were described by Bert and Reilly as being agitated, angry and acting "weird". You then went inside, and you told Ms Keating on the way past her, "I'm going to burn the house down".  You went to the kitchen before coming back to the garage with a box of matches.  You had already lit a match.  You were waving the lit match towards Ms Keating as you yelled, "I will set you on fire, I will set the whole thing on fire and watch it burn", and you said you did not care about anyone else.  This caused Bert and Reilly to fear for their mother's safety; Reilly ran upstairs. This conduct is the basis of Charge 4 – threat to destroy or damage property and Charge 5 – threats to inflict serious injury.

19Once the match ended up burning out Ms Keating started recording the incident on her mobile phone before suggesting that you need to spend some time apart.  You collected your tools from the garage before leaving in your ute.  Ms Keating then took Bert, Beatrice, and Sienna to go pick up Mary and Jack from ballet, leaving Reilly alone at home with Robert.

20Reilly contacted a neighbour to come over while his mother was out.  During that time, you returned home and started banging on the front door.  When Reilly did not answer you started fiddling with the garage door in an attempt to get it open.  You then broke into the house through the front bedroom window which was Ms Keating’s bedroom. You grabbed your clothes, your backpack, and a gift card. Before leaving you said to Reilly, "You shouldn't trust mum, everything she says is a lie".

21Later that night Ms Keating sent a text message to her father about what you had done.

22On 19 May 2021, she attended Forest Hill Police station and provided some details of the incident. Police attended at 9.20am on that day but no one was home. They returned later and by that stage Ms Keating was present. She provided a statement in relation to the incident and disclosed previous family violence, including the common law assault incident relating to your son Robert.

Arrest and interview

23You were interviewed on 19 May 2021 at the Box Hill Police Station in relation to the threats you had made the day prior.  You made admissions to pouring petrol and striking a match, but you denied making threats against Ms Keating or to harm anyone.  You said you poured "About 300 mil …At best, 300 mil". When you were asked what your intent was, you said that you were trying to remove old paint.

24You were bailed on your own undertaking to appear at Ringwood Magistrates' Court on 6 June 2021 and charged on that date.  The undertaking of bail included conditions that prevented you contacting or communicating with Ms Keating.  

Further investigation

25Police attended at your residence on 20 May to investigate this matter and take photographs. When they arrived, the petrol had been covered up with bicarbonate of soda but a strong smell of petrol lingered.

26At 1.49pm that day in contravention of your bail condition, you contacted Ms Keating.  About 10 minutes after that, you rang Senior Constable Smith indicating you had done something you didn’t mean to do. You said you got in   vehicle and asked 'Siri' to call Ms Keating, letting it ring a couple of times in your ear before pulling over and hanging up the call before she could answer.  This phone call was made from your work mobile phone. This is the basis of summary offence 5: contravene bail conduct conditions.

Further arrest and interview of the accused

27On 2 June 2021 you were arrested by appointment at the Box Hill Police Station where you were interviewed in relation to the alleged contravention on 20 May 2021 of the condition preventing you from contacting Ms Keating.  You made admissions to making a phone call to her stating it was out of habit, you did it daily, and that immediately afterwards you deleted her phone number from your work mobile phone. You were remanded in custody.

28On 22 February 2022 a full Intervention Order was granted against you in respect of your wife and children. Contact was prohibited by the order.  The order was served on you on 1 March 2022.

29You were granted bail on 4 March 2022. You had been committed for trial by that stage as I understand it in respect of the first indictment. Again, your bail conditions precluded you from contacting any prosecution witnesses and there was a condition which meant you could not contact Ms Keating. The offending on Indictment N10701933 relates to breaching the Intervention Order. 

Offending on Indictment N10701933

30On 5 March 2022, the day after you were released from prison, Ms Keating received an email from you at her email address. The email was from an address of [email protected].

31Enquiries with the Mount Alexander Council revealed no such address existed.[10]  In the email, you told Ms Keating that you wanted to see her, and you loved her.  You told her you wanted to meet your daughter, Lucy[11], who had been born while you were in custody.  You told Ms Keating to delete all the messages you had exchanged.

[10]The Prosecution Opening states that the registered owner of [email protected] is listed as Ana Domini of  MacDonald Street, Fryerstown, Victoria.

[11]        A pseudonym

32On 6 March 2022, Ms Keating took Lucy to meet you at your address and enquire about an issue with Lucy's birth certificate.  You told her to come inside so no one could see you together.  She did this, fearing repercussions if she did not.

33Inside, you handed Ms Keating a piece of paper with a mobile phone number written on it.  You then hurried Ms Keating out of the house when you heard a car approaching.  Several hours later, Ms Keating phoned you on the number you had given her to discuss the birth certificate issue.  You told her to buy a SIM card and send it to you by mail, so that if the phone records were checked it would show her phoning herself.

34On 8 March 2022, you met Ms Keating near Mary Street, Ringwood and she handed you a SIM card she had purchased.  Later that day she collected the children and drove to South Australia to stay with relatives because she was terrified of you.  She stayed in South Australia for 5 days, over the course of which you emailed her multiple times, apologising for the incident in May.  It is the Crown case you were attempting to manipulate Ms Keating to return to Melbourne which she did.

35On 14 March, you texted Ms Keating asking her to meet up in a park in the Mitcham area.  You sent her a map of a location to meet. She came and met you that afternoon.  You told her you wanted to get rid of the Intervention Order and that you wanted her to make a statement of no complaint to the police to 'get you off' criminal charges.  You continued to apologise and tell her you missed her.  You said you were no longer afraid of prison, and you had friends there.

36On 15 March, you sent Ms Keating a link to a document titled 'DPP v Michael JONES'.  You told her it was the brief of evidence against you. She was told what to say to the Police and that Bert and Reilly had lied.

37Police obtained a download of messages with 131 pages of dialogue including information only you would have known, such as the details of your surety and your offending in May 2021. This the basis of Charge 1 – persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order.

38You told Ms Keating in this period that you were using a server in New Jersey to send messages so they were encrypted and unreadable, but that she should still delete the thread.  Ms Keating though provided her iPad to police who retrieved the messages; there were too many to count.

39There was a voice message extracted where you expressed your love for Ms Keating.  This was a tipping point for her, and she drove to Wodonga and later Albury, to avoid contact.  The children did not attend school for an extended period out of fear of you.

40There was ultimately a search warrant executed at your home address on 8 April 2022 where various mobile phones and other items were located and seized.  You told police you had used one of the phones to communicate with Ms Keating.

41You were on bail at the time of the persistent contravention, so that gives rise to two related summary offences: 5 - committing an Indictable offence whilst on bail and 6 - contravening conduct condition of bail.

Plea of guilty and remorse

42You pleaded guilty before me on 23 June 2022 after I gave a sentence indication as to the maximum total sentence that I would not exceed for all charges. There were two earlier hearings where Mr Rolfe on your behalf basically foreshadowed a guilty plea to charges in this case, in my opinion.  There was no contested committal hearing.  None of the victims have ever been cross-examined about these matters.

43In relation to the second indictment, you agreed to have that matter dealt with by way of indictment thus forfeiting your right to a summary hearing in the Magistrates' Court, where there is statutory cap of two years on the penalty that can be imposed.  It is of course to your benefit to have all matters dealt with together, and it has allowed me to have an overview of all matters. In my opinion, your agreement to have the matter dealt with in this way is an additional indication of your willingness to facilitate the course of justice.

44You are entitled to a significant benefit for the utilitarian value of your plea which is heightened in the current circumstances where this court faces a very significant backlog of trials because of the pandemic.  The increased utilitarian value in the current circumstances was recognised by the Court of Appeal in the case of Worboyes[12] and other cases and I apply those principles. The sentencing discount must be palpable.

[12] [2021] VSCA 169 at 35

45Your plea of guilty has also spared your wife and children the trauma of having to give evidence and relive these distressing events.  I accept your plea of guilty demonstrates, as I said earlier, a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and is indicative of some remorse.  You must receive a significant discount for it.

Victim impact statement

46I have read and had regard to the victim impact statements in this matter. I will return to the significance of those documents.

Personal circumstances

47Your personal circumstances are set out in the defence submissions and in the psychological report of Ms Gina Cidoni.

48You were born in Mount Gambier and then raised for some time in Victoria. Your parents were volunteers for the Salvation Army.  Your father was also a linesman and a fire fighter for the Country Fire Authority.  He suffered a heart attack and died in 1991 whilst fighting a fire when you were 11 years old. 

49You have two brothers, aged 39 and 44, who live in Adelaide.  You have no contact with them. After your father died you moved with your mother into Mount Gambier.  Your mother's sister lived nearby, and she was able to provide support to the family. 

50Your mother formed a new relationship, but her partner died in a motor vehicle accident some eight years later. You say your relationship with your mother was strained because of issues between Ms Keating and your mother; that’s what you say. Since the end of the relationship, you have had more contact with your mother.

51You were engaged briefly when you were aged 19 but that relationship did not last.  You then lived with a woman in Brisbane for some 18 months.  However, according to the material you had financial problems at that time, and you returned to live with your brother in Mount Gambier while your partner remained in Brisbane. 

52You met your wife, Tammy, the victim in these matters, at a church when you were 25 years old.  You dated for some time and then got married in June 2005.  You were living in Mount Gambier at that stage.  Your first child was born in January 2006.  Your other children were born in 2009, 2011, 2013, 2016, 2019 and most recently in October 2021.  You were in custody when your youngest child, Lucy, was born.  During your relationship your wife, Ms Keating, suffered several miscarriages and a still birth. 

53You moved to Victoria in or around 2008 for work and Ms Keating followed you. Apparently, you returned to South Australia at some stage after Ms Keating's mother was killed in a car accident.  The material indicates you stayed there for a short time and then moved back to Melbourne. You lived in Forest Hill and then Wantirna.

54You were educated up until Year 10.  After that, you worked in a music store for some five years until you were about 20 years old. I am told you worked at Harvey Norman in Mount Gambier in the electrical department.  You also worked at Harvey Norman in Victoria. In Queensland you worked at Hyundai selling cars.  You were working as a salesman for Rapid Cold Air Conditioning before you were remanded in custody in relation to these matters.  You returned to that work when you were released on bail before being further remanded in custody.

Psychological reports

55In her report Ms Cidoni provided a risk assessment with respect to family violence offending.  You scored 6 on this assessment: 53 per cent of people in this category came to the further attention of police within the following five years.

56It is not clear to me that Ms Cidoni factored in your prior conviction from 2006 to this risk assessment or had significant details about the persistent breach offence so I have some concerns about the accuracy of this assessment.  Your risk might have been assessed as higher had she had that information.

57Ms Cidoni says in her report that you do not suffer from any cognitive problems.  The testing indicated though, you are suffering from a persistent depressive disorder, and you would benefit from some intervention focussing on symptoms relating to depression and of course treatment and counselling in respect of family violence. 

Gravity

58Your offending was family violence offending at a serious level.

59Violence by men towards women in the context of family relationships is prevalent offending.  In this case you were also violent to your son and to your whole family via the incident involving threats and where you spread petrol in the garage and later on the floor and where you had a match, a lit match, in the vicinity of the petrol.

60The Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasised the need for sentencing courts to strongly condemn family violence.

61Serious conduct such as yours committed in the context of a controlling relationship and then in defiance of bail conditions and an intervention order requires that denunciation, just punishment and general deterrence be given primacy in sentencing. In this case, given the way events unfolded where you reoffended after a period in custody, specific deterrence is also of significant importance.

62Mr Jones, your offending was disturbing.  To strangle your child in the circumstances involved in this case is very difficult to understand; it must have been terrifying for him.  He was only 5 years old.  It is indicative of your need to control your immediate family members and your inability to restrain yourself when you could not.

63The incident involving the threat to kill and the later threats that I detailed, and the use of petrol must have been a profoundly alarming to your wife and children.  The use of the petrol accompanied by a threat involved a level of menace (as did the assault on your son) that causes me considerable concern about future offending against your family.  The sentencing considerations of community protection and specific deterrence are therefore of importance.

64The persistent breach offence which commenced the day after you were released from prison and continued for over a month was a serious example of that offence.  Such conditions are in place to prevent family violence and to allow protected persons or aggrieved family members to feel safe.  These objectives fail when offenders behave in the way that you did.  Your conduct demonstrated your unwillingness to accept that your earlier conduct had disqualified you from having contact with your wife and children.  Your contact with Ms Keating seems to have been directed towards improving your legal situation regarding the charges against you.  I am minded that I cannot sentence you for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.  You are not charged with that offence.  But the offending was planned and persistent, with a degree of sophistication and calculated to manipulate Ms Keating.

65Offending such as yours causes substantial harm of an enduring nature to victims.  That has been the case here.

66Today Ms Keating read the whole of her eloquent victim impact statement, in which she detailed effects on her that your offending has caused, not only the effects on her but the effects on all your children.  Those consequences have been multi-faceted and will be enduring.  Mr Davison, the prosecutor, also read the victim impact statement of your son, Reilly, underlining the effect on him and, indeed, I would infer, the effect on all of your children. 

67You should be ashamed that your serious and persistent offending has damaged your children in the ways described in your wife's victim impact statement, not to mention the damage you have done to Ms Keating herself, who was your partner from 2005.  Your conduct is disgraceful, and you should be deeply ashamed of what you have done.

Prospects of rehabilitation

68In assessing your prospects of rehabilitation, I take into account that you have pleaded guilty and ultimately taken responsibility for this very serious offending.

69At the age of 42 you do not have an extensive criminal history; however, your prior conviction is for the same type of offending against your wife, Ms Keating, who you offended against in 2006.  Although that occurred quite a while ago now it falls to be considered in the light of the nature and seriousness of your offending and in the context of the controlling nature of your relationship with your wife over many years. 

70The risk factors for you in re-offending obviously relate to recontacting your wife and your family.  You must understand your relationship with Ms Keating is over and you must abide by the orders in place that preclude you from seeing her.

71There is an intervention order in place until 2025 and if you contact Ms Keating, you will have breached that order.  You will have committed a criminal offence.  You will be in breach of the parole period that I intend to impose today.  I can only assess your prospects of rehabilitation in all the circumstances as guarded but in fixing a non-parole period I have had regard to your limited criminal history and that you have been a contributing member of the community through employment over a lengthy period and your mature age.

COVID-19 pandemic

72I accept that the burden of the period you have spent on remand has been increased by restrictions in the prison system in response to the pandemic.  This has meant visits have been suspended and access to programs have been restricted. Such restrictions are likely to continue for some time.  I have taken this into account as a matter in mitigation.

Totality

73The totality principle requires that the overall sentence I impose must be just and proportionate to the total criminality of your offending.  To comply with the totality principle, I have moderated the periods of cumulation between offences.  In deciding the periods of cumulation, I have considered whether the charge represents a separate episode of criminality and that some of the charges were committed on bail, which means the statutory presumption is for cumulation rather than concurrency in respect of those charges.

74In relation to Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5, as discussed with counsel this morning, I have taken the view that those offences, all threats, all closely connected in time, all motivated by the same circumstances, are part of a series of offences of the same or similar character and as required by s 9 of the Sentencing Act as a precondition to imposing an aggregate sentence of imprisonment.  So that is what I will do with respect to those charges relating to the threats in May of 2021.  That also allows me to reflect totality with respect to that incident. 

Submissions

75Turning to the submissions of the parties in this matter: the Crown initially submitted in May that a combination sentence of a gaol sentence and a community correction order was within range. They maintained that submission after the second indictment was filed on 6 June at the hearing the next day, on 7 June, but at the subsequent sentence indication hearing on 23 June submitted that in circumstances where there are therapeutic supports available on parole, the offending merited a head sentence with a minimum non-parole period.

76Mr Rolfe initially argued for a combination sentence, but after I gave my sentence indication on 23 June, and indicated I intended to impose a head sentence with a non-parole period, you accepted this and then pleaded guilty aware of that indication.

77Given the seriousness of these offences, the impact on the victims, the fact of offending on bail and in breach of an intervention order, in my opinion, relevant sentencing considerations, especially specific deterrence and community protection, dictate that a head sentence with a minimum term is appropriate.  In the circumstances of this case, a parole period is the appropriate method of allowing for your rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.  It will of course be a matter for the parole board to decide whether you are to be released at the expiration of the minimum term and on what conditions.

Sentence

78Mr Jones, I am now about to sentence you.

79On Indictment M11139186:

(a)   On Charge 1 of common assault, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 10 months;

(b)   On Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 15 months;

(c)   In respect of the related summary offence, contravening a conduct condition of bail, you are convicted and sentenced to one month;

(d)   Five months of the sentence on Charge 1 and the sentence with respect to Summary Charge 5 will be cumulative on the aggregate sentence of 15 months for Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5, making a total effective sentence on that indictment of 21 months.

80On Indictment N10701933:

(a)   For Charge 1 of persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 12 months;

(b)   For the Summary Offence of breaching bail condition, one month;

(c)   For the Summary Offence of committing an indictable offence on bail, one month;

(d)   The periods of imprisonment on the two summary offences will be concurrent, essentially constituted by the same offending that makes up Charge 1, the persistent contravention.  That makes a total effective sentence on that indictment of 12 months. 

81I order that 10 months of the sentence on Indictment N10701933 is cumulative on the total effective sentence of 21 months on indictment M11139186.  So that is a total effective sentence across both indictments of 31 months.

82I fix a minimum non-parole period in this matter of 19 months.

83Pursuant to s18(4) of Sentencing Act I declare pre-sentence detention of 372 days to be reckoned as time served to be deducted administratively from the sentence I have imposed.

84Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, a sentence of 3 years and 8 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 7 months.

85Are there any other ancillary orders that need to be made in the matter?

86MR DAVISON:  Your Honour, there is one ancillary order.

87HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

88MR DAVISON:  It relates to the second indictment, concerning the persistent contravention of an intervention order.

89HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

90MR DAVISON:  Forfeiture of the mobile phone seized is sought.

91HIS HONOUR:  Mr Rolfe, any objection to that?

92MR ROLFE:  No objection, Your Honour.

93HIS HONOUR:  I will make that forfeiture order. 

…