Director of Public Prosecutions v Jordan (a pseudonym)

[2024] VCC 1290

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

WARRICK JORDAN (A PSEUDONYM)

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 August 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 August 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Jordan (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1290

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:Criminal law - Sentence

Catchwords:              Guilty plea following sentence indication – sexual penetration of a child under 16 – sexual assault of a child under 16 (rolled-up charge) – serious offending involving breach of trust – significant victim impact – no prior criminal history – application of Bugmy principles – diagnosed complex-PTSD – delay – burden of imprisonment – risk of deportation – general deterrence and denunciation principle sentencing considerations – sex offender registration for life.

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic)

Cases Cited:R. v. Clarkson (2011) 32 VR 361; Bugmy v. The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; R. v. Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269

Sentence:                  Five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. 

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms F. Martin	Office of Public Prosecutions
Victoria
For the Accused	Ms L. Dubroja	Dribbin and Brown Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1Warrick Jordan[1], following a sentence indication hearing[2], you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a) Sexual penetration of a child under 16 contrary to s49B(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 ('the Act'), the maximum penalty for which is 15 years' imprisonment; and

(b) Sexual assault of a child under 16 contrary to s49D(1) of the Act, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years' imprisonment.

[1]A pseudonym.

[2]Sentence indication given by Judge Syme on 28 September 2023.  Prior to sentencing, Judge Syme retired as a Judge of the County Court.

2

You were born in American Samoa in 1972 and were between the age of

46 and 47 at the time of your offending.  You have no criminal history.

Circumstances of offending

3In order to place your offending in context, it is necessary to set out the background to your relationship with the victims.

4You are married to Lucinda Jordan[3] with whom you have two children.  At the time of the offending, you lived with your wife and children, together with your wife's brother and father.  Your wife is the maternal aunt of the victims.

[3]A pseudonym.

5The victims of your offending are Briana Airlie[4], who was born in 2007 and Sasha Evette[5], who was born in 2005.  The victims are two of seven children of your sister-in-law and her partner.  The victims are therefore your nieces by marriage.  When these reasons are published, the names of the victims and other family members will be anonymised to prevent their identification.

[4]A pseudonym.

[5]A pseudonym.

6In 2019 and 2020, the victims and their siblings would regularly spend time with you and your extended family at your house in Truganina.  They would generally spend every weekend at your house, from Friday after school until Sunday afternoon.  You often told the family you wanted them to come over and stay the weekend, and would sometimes pick them up and drive them to your house.

Charge 1 – Sexual Penetration of a child under 16

7The first charge relates to your offending against Briana Airlie.

8In 2019, when the victim was either 11 or 12 years old, she was sleeping over at your house.  It was night time, and she was lying on a mattress in a room near the front door, watching videos on YouTube on the television.  She was wearing black tights, a t-shirt and a jumper.  Her sister was sleeping elsewhere in the room.

9The victim heard footsteps in the room, and believed it was you because you would usually come into the room to turn off the television.  The victim pretended to be asleep.  She lay on her stomach with her head to one side and her eyes slightly open to watch you leave the room.  The victim saw you turn off the television before approaching her.

10You poked her bottom to see if she was asleep and stood next to her for about five seconds.  You then bent down and slipped your hands down the back of her tights and reached around to her vagina.  You placed your finger inside her vagina and moved it in and out for a few minutes.  You then removed your hand from her pants, and tried to roll the victim over, but she made it difficult for you to do this.  When you could not roll her over, you left the room.

11The next morning, you looked at the victim and acted as if nothing had happened.

12Your conduct in digitally penetrating the vagina of the victim is the subject of Charge 1 – sexual penetration of a child under 16.

Charge 2 – rolled up charge of Sexual Assault of a child under 16

13The second charge is a rolled-up charge of sexual assault of a child under 16, where the victim is Sasha Evette.

First occasion

14One Sunday, between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2019, the victim was staying over at your house.  She was 13 years old at the time.   She was tired after returning from church, and lay down on a mattress in the lounge room.  She was wearing a long dress that touched the floor.

15She fell asleep on her right side, but woke on her back after feeling that she was being touched in her 'lower area'.  Her dress was pushed up.  You were touching her slowly; moving your finger up and down from the top of her pelvic area to her bottom, over her underwear.  You did this for approximately 10 seconds.

16During this incident, you would stop touching the victim for a short while, before continuing, returning and 'doing the same thing’ again touching her vagina and bottom over her underwear.  You did this about three to four times.  The victim felt you make 'small circles' with your hands.  You then put your hand inside her underwear, touching her vagina for a few seconds, before taking your hand out.  Eventually you stopped and left the victim alone.  She could then hear you putting away the dishes.  The three distinct acts of sexual assault on this occasion each form part of rolled-up Charge 2.

Second occasion

17Approximately three to four weeks later, the victim was staying at your house for the weekend.  The victim was asleep on a couch in the loungeroom around midnight, lying on her side facing the back of the couch.  Her sister was also asleep in the same room, on another couch.  The victim was wearing pants and a t-shirt.

18The victim woke to you gently moving her onto her back.  She opened her eyes a little and saw you staring back at her.  You were wearing shorts and no shirt.  The victim closed her eyes again to appear as if she had fallen asleep.  She then felt you slip your hand inside her pants, between her pants and her underwear, and rub your hand 'down and up' repeatedly touching her bottom and the area of her vagina for around one minute.  You stopped and went to the bathroom for a short while.

19You then returned and began touching the victim again between her pants and underwear, using your two fingers to make 'circles around' the victim's 'top area' going down until you reached her bottom.  You did this two or three times for approximately 20 to 25 seconds.  You then stopped and left the room.  These two further acts of sexual assault on this occasion also form part of rolled-up Charge 2.

Third occasion

20On a Friday afternoon during the school holidays, between 30 June 2019 and 30 June 2020, while the victim was still 13, she was in your bedroom with her sisters, who were watching television.  She was using your mobile phone to watch TikTok and YouTube videos.  She was wearing black shorts and a white t-shirt.

21You entered the bedroom and sat next to the victim watching TikTok videos with her.  You started touching her thighs, before moving your hand closer to her vagina with 'massaging strokes' attempting to touch her vaginal area.  The victim moved away to try to avoid being touched, but you continued to touch her.  The act of sexual assault on this occasion forms part of rolled-up Charge 2.

22To get away from you, the victim pretended to fall off the bed and said she was thirsty or hungry.  She dropped your phone on the bed and ran out of the room.  You did not touch her vagina on this occasion.

Fourth occasion

23On a Saturday between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2020, the victim was at her home, where she lived with her parents and siblings.  Her parents had taken her sister to a netball game, leaving her at home with her uncle.

24You came to the house, because the family's lawnmower had broken down, and you had offered to mow their lawn.  The victim was upstairs in her bedroom when she heard footsteps on the stairs.  She assumed it was her uncle, before seeing it was you.

25The victim tried to leave her bedroom, but you grabbed her by the arm.  You pushed her up against the wall, and held her there against her will.[6]  You told her not to move.  You held the victim by her arms before you placed your hands on the wall either side of the victim, with her back to you.  You then pressed the front of your body to the victim's 'back area' and 'bottom half' for about 10 seconds, before the victim slipped under your arms and left the room.  The sexual assault on this occasion also forms part of rolled-up Charge 2.

[6]An uncharged act.

Fifth occasion

26On a date between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2020, the victim was lying in bed in a bedroom at your house watching television.  Her sister was asleep in the same room.  At this stage, the victim no longer felt safe sleeping at your place.

27You came into the bedroom and asked the victim if she was awake.  You then left the room to go to the kitchen, before returning to the bedroom.  About half an hour later, the victim feel asleep.

28You returned to the bedroom at about 2 am when the victim was asleep.  She woke to feel you using your index finger to stroke her bottom over her pants.  You continued to do this with your fingers before grabbing her bottom and 'playing around with it' for about 20 seconds.  The victim then moved to lie on her back.  When she did this, you touched the area of her vagina, over her pants, for about 20 seconds.  These two acts of sexual assault on this occasion also form part of rolled-up Charge 2.

Complaint to family

29In 2019, the victims spoke to each other about your offending on the way to school.   Sasha began crying when she had flashbacks of the offending, and told Briana what you had done, because she felt she needed to tell somebody.  Briana began to cry and told Sasha that the same thing had happened to her; that she had also been touched by you.  Neither sister went into much detail.  They hugged each other and told each other that it was okay.

30By early 2020, the victims had told their parents that they no longer wanted to go to your house on weekends.  Their mother had noticed that Briana was now sleeping with the light on or with her younger sisters, and that Sasha was becoming quick to anger and more distant.

31In June 2020, their mother saw that Sasha had created an Instagram account against her parents’ wishes, which led to argument.  Her uncle became involved and asked the victim what was going on.  Sasha alluded to reasons but said no more.  Briana then told her uncle that she knew why her sister was upset.  Briana then became upset and said she was scared.  Her mother took her to the bathroom and asked Briana to type out what was making Sasha upset.  She typed in your name.

32The family then sat with the victims in the loungeroom.  Briana told them that you touched her under the blanket on an occasion she was pretending to be asleep in the front room.  Sasha told the family that you had touched her when you made her stand up against a wall.

33The family confronted you with these allegations.  The victims repeated what they had told their parents, to which you responded, 'No, no', denying the allegations.  You said you had never gone to the girls during the night, except to put blankets on them.

34The adults remained alone to talk, while you spoke with your wife.  You then returned to the loungeroom and said 'sorry' and asked for forgiveness, getting down on your knees and crying, as you apologised.  The victims and their family then left the house.

35The victims had also complained to school friends about your conduct.  In 2019, when she was in Year 7, Briana told a friend you came into her room and touched her vagina.  In 2020, Sasha told a friend that you had touched her while she was sleeping at your house, and that it happened multiple times.  On 19 March 2020, she sent her friend a message referring to these discussions, and saying 'it happened again', 'this morning'.  On 24 May 2020, she sent her friend another message, saying, 'It happened again', 'I'm scared', 'I need u', 'pls' and ended with her saying 'is it bad that I cried myself to sleep?'.

36The matter was reported to police on 14 December 2021, and each of the victims made a video recorded statement.

37You were arrested on 8 August 2022, and interviewed.  In accordance with your rights, you made no comment in response to the questions asked of you by the police.

Nature and gravity of offending

38I am now going to say something about the nature and gravity of your offending.

39Sexual offending against children is inherently serious offending.  The law places an absolute prohibition on sexual activity with children, in recognition of the harm presumed to flow to children from any premature sexual activity.[7]

[7]R v Clarkson (2011) 32 VR 361, at [3}

40In this case, there are a number of aggravating features that inform the objective gravity of your offending.

41First and foremost, as the victims' uncle you were a trusted member of their extended family: a trust you were prepared to exploit to engage in this offending.  The two families spent much time together and by your conduct you breached the trust that is born of such a relationship, including the trust of the victims' parents who permitted you to spend significant time with the victims, either at their home or at yours.  The offending occurred at times the victims were entrusted to your care, in your home.  Your sexual abuse of them in that context was a gross breach of trust.

42Secondly, the age disparity between you and the victims was significant.  You were between 46 and 47 at the time of the offending;  Briana was either 11 or 12 and  Sasha was 13 years old.  At such a young age, the victims' vulnerability arises from their very lack of life experience and understanding.  As a much older uncle, you were able to exploit that vulnerability to offend against them.  The victims were entitled to be safe in their home, and when visiting yours, but they were not.

43Thirdly, you offended against not one but two victims.  While you are to be sentenced for a single instance of offending against Briana, your offending against Sasha was protracted, involving multiple separate instances of sexual assault.  Your moral culpability for your offending increased with each further act of offending against her over that period.  You had adequate time to stop and reflect upon the wrongfulness of what you were doing and desist, but you did not.  On two occasions, the offending only ended when the victim left the room.

44At one point, your offending against Sasha was aggravated by the use of force to hold her against the wall before sexually assaulting her.  Your use of force can only have acted to heighten the victim's fear of what you may do on that occasion.

45The offending has had a profound effect on the lives of the victims and their parents, as borne out of the victim impact statements tendered at the plea hearing.

46Understandably, Briana speaks of feeling confused and 'frozen' by your offending against her.  She says she could not believe what had happened to her, leaving her to ask, 'why?' She says she now struggles to sleep, and has flashbacks of your offending, causing her panic attacks.  She says this has interrupting her schooling, and leaves her feeling drained, and depressed.  She now struggles to leave the house.

47Sasha describes feeling scared, angry, frustrated, lost and helpless because of what you did.  She also says she finds it difficult to sleep and struggles at school.  Sadly, she says she now has difficulty trusting people.

48Although she bears no responsibility for your offending, the victims' mother feels she failed her daughters in failing to protect them.  She now feels helpless in the face of the victims' trauma and her inability to do more to help them.  She also expresses her anger at the damage your offending caused to her relationships, particularly with her sister.  She states she trusted you around her children as you watched them grow up.  She is devastated by the fact you took advantage of them.

49The father of the victims also speaks of your betrayal of his trust and his frustration that he was unable to protect his daughters.  Simply put, he says your offending has left him feeling broken.

50Mr Jordan, you can be in no doubt that your sexual offending against your nieces has caused significant harm to them and caused irreparable harm to the relationship between your extended family.  You bear a high degree of moral culpability for your offending conduct, however this is also informed by your personal circumstances to which I now turn.

Personal circumstances

51You were born and raised in American Samoa.  You are the middle of five children born to your parents.  You also have half siblings on both your mother and father's side.  You were raised with your maternal half-siblings.

52Your parents separated when you were three years old.  Your father had little contact with you during your childhood.  Your mother worked in a canning factory to support all the children.  While you had the necessities of life, the family struggled financially and lived in impoverished circumstances.

53Your difficult childhood experiences are detailed in the psychological report of clinical and forensic psychologist, Mr Patrick Newton, who assessed you for the purposes of your plea on 21 March 2023.

54Your mother's brother moved into the house after your father left, 'ostensibly' to assist in the care of the children and to maintain the house.  You report to Mr Newton that your recollection of your childhood is dominated by the repeated physical abuse you experienced at the hands of your uncle.  You were expected to assist with maintenance of the house, and other building tasks, but were beaten severely by your uncle for failing to complete tasks, or sometimes, for no reason.  Your uncle would use timber and other instruments to beat you, leaving physical scars, that are visible to this day.

55You reported to Mr Newton that on one occasion, you woke to your uncle on top of you, trying to pull your pants down.  You describe fighting back by punching your uncle in the teeth.  You state this event was the catalyst to your decision to leave your mother's home in your mid-teens, leaving you homeless, staying with friends for two-and-a-half years, until your uncle moved away.

56You attended local schools in Samoa, and Samoan is your first language.  You describe yourself as an average student.  You had no significant behavioural or social problems at school, and enjoyed a strong friendship circle.  You completed high school and one year of further education in teaching.

57Your mother re-partnered briefly when you were in your teens.  You did not have any difficulties with her partner, but the relationship did not last long.

58When you were in your early twenties, you moved to New Zealand in an attempt to forge a relationship with your father.  This did not eventuate, and you report feeling rejected by your father.  Your father is now deceased and you have no contact with your step-mother or paternal half-siblings.

59You remained in New Zealand, becoming a New Zealand citizen, working primarily in warehouses, which you enjoyed.  You met your wife in 2008, and married after a few years.  In 2012, you and your wife migrated to Australia, where you are a permanent resident.

60You and your wife have two children, a son aged seven and a daughter aged five.  Your wife remains supportive of you, visiting you once a week in custody and speaking with you daily.  You and your wife have decided that it is not suitable for the children to visit you in prison, so you only have phone contact with them.  Not seeing your children is a cause of significant distress for you.

61In your past, you had a problem with binge drinking and cocaine abuse.  However, this caused problems in your marriage, and you have been abstinent from all alcohol and drugs for the past eight years.  You were not affected by substances at the time of your offending.

62Now aged 52, you suffer from high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol.  You were diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes about eight years ago, which is managed by medication.  You have no other physical health issues.

63In custody, you occupy yourself by working in the bakery.

Matters in mitigation of sentence

64Counsel appearing on your behalf, Ms Dubroja, provided helpful written submissions in which she highlighted a number of matters that operate in mitigation of your sentence, which she elaborated upon at your plea hearing.

65First and foremost, you have pleaded guilty to these offences.  In doing so, you acknowledge responsibility for your offending and facilitate the course of justice.  Most significantly, in a case such as this, your guilty plea means that the victims and other family members were saved the ordeal of giving evidence at a trial.  I attach appreciable weight to this fact.  Your guilty plea also saved the court and the community the cost and resources associated with a jury trial. 

66Moreover, in your discussions with Mr Newton, you appear to have recognised the hurt you have caused the victims and that your offending violated their trust.  You told Mr Newton that you feel haunted every day by what you did, that you are sorry, stating that, 'if you could fix it', you would.  I accept that your plea is accompanied by remorse and feelings of shame.

67However, you have shown limited insight into your offending conduct and, in your discussions with Mr Newton, he assessed you as having 'considerable difficulty discussing the likely effects of your conduct on [the victims]'.  You told Mr Newton that you had thought about touching the victims for some time prior to the offending, and that you had progressed to acting on these urges.  However, Mr Newton states that you could not explain the basis of your desire to touch them – becoming tearful when he sought to explore this with you.  I agree with Mr Newton's conclusion that you would benefit from offence-specific treatment to improve your understanding of your offending conduct.

68Secondly, your experience of significant childhood trauma, following your experience of violent abuse at the hands of your uncle, ultimately resulting in teenage homelessness, is relevant to your sentence.  In the leading case of Bugmy[8], the High Court enunciated that profound childhood trauma, such as that endured during your formative years, does not diminish with the passage of time.  I give full weight to your deprived background and the general principles articulated in the case of Bugmy in sentencing you.  Your moral culpability cannot be equated with that of an offender who had no similar experience of childhood trauma and disadvantage. 

[8]Bugmy v. The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571

69Mr Newton explains that, fundamentally, your basic sense of security in the world was undermined by your recurrent experiences of abuse and instability as a child.  He states that the legacy of these experiences has left you feeling deeply insecure in interpersonal and social contexts, in addition to suffering recurrent intrusive recollections of your past abuse and feelings of alienation from others.  Mr Newton concludes that you now meet the diagnostic criteria for a complex post-traumatic stress disorder.  However, there is no evidence to suggest that this disorder was in any way causally related to your offending and no reliance was placed on Limbs 1 to 4 of the authority of Verdins[9] in mitigation of your sentence.

[9]R. v. Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269

70Thirdly, I also accept that your complex-PTSD is making your experience of custody more difficult than would likely be experienced by a prisoner without this disorder.  Mr Newton states that you are 'experiencing a markedly more intense level of emotional upheaval than is typical as a result of this condition'.  With his considerable experience, I accept Mr Newton's assessment that treatment for your complex-PTSD is unlikely to be available in prison, and that the 'exposure to violence which characterises ordinary prison life' would be likely to exacerbate your complex-PTSD.  I have regard to Limbs 5 and 6 of the authority of Verdins in moderating your sentence accordingly.

71Fourthly, as a non-Australian citizen, your face a realistic risk of being deported upon your eventual release from custody.  Although I am unable to speculate about the outcome of any deportation decision the executive may make, I accept that the very real prospect of deportation will weigh upon you heavily, noting that your wife and two young children all live in Australia with you.  This, compounded by your complex-PTSD, adds considerably to the burden of your imprisonment, and is a further matter that operates in mitigation of your sentence.

72Finally, I have regard to the impact of the delay in these proceedings in sentencing you.  As stated, you indicated an intention to plead guilty close to a year ago following a sentence indication given by another judge.  The indication was accepted, and you were arraigned on 4 October 2023.  The plea before that judge was heard on 15 November 2023 but the judge retired before handing down her sentence.  Given the circumstances, a further plea hearing proceeded before me on 8 August 2024.  You have been on remand since October 2023, during which time your matter has not been finalised, through no fault of yours.  I readily accept that this has been difficult for you, with you denied the opportunity to access programs whilst on remand, such as the sex offender treatment program, that is only available following sentence.  This delay warrants further moderation of your sentence.

73Assessing your prospects of rehabilitation is more complicated.  On the one hand, you are a man of 52, with no prior criminal history.  You are to be sentenced as a person of otherwise good character.  Despite your childhood experiences, from the time you left home, you have demonstrated a strong work ethic throughout your adult life.  You have the love and support of your wife.  Against this, your offending was serious, and in respect of your offending against Sasha, it was prolonged.  Having conducted a risk assessment by reference to two clinical risk assessment instruments, Mr Newton concluded that you pose a moderate risk of recidivism to sexual offending.  Assuming you engage with a specialist offence specific program, Mr Newton expects that your risk would steadily reduce to fall in the 'low range' over the medium term.

74Given the current risk assessment, I consider there remains a need for the sentence I impose to deter you specifically from future offending.  Given your absence of priors, and available family support, I accept that there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about your future prospects, which will certainly be enhanced upon completion of sex offender treatment to improve your understanding of your offending behaviour.

Other sentencing considerations

75In cases involving the sexual abuse of children, particularly where the offending is a violation of the victims' trust, general deterrence and denunciation are sentencing considerations of significant weight.  Others must be deterred from the sexual abuse of children in the knowledge that, if detected, they face a significant sentence of imprisonment.

76Parliament has unmistakably marked the gravity of such offending by prescribing a standard sentence of six years' imprisonment for the offence of sexual penetration of a child under 16, and a standard sentence of four years' imprisonment for the offence of sexual assault of a child under 16.  The standard sentence is a legislative guidepost for offences that are in the middle of the range of seriousness, having regard to the objective gravity of the offending only.  The standard sentence does not alter the usual approach to sentencing, involving an instinctive synthesis of all relevant sentencing considerations, including matters personal to you, and the matters in mitigation to which I have referred.

77When sentencing for a standard sentence offence, the court is required to explain how the sentence imposed relates to the standard sentence.  In respect of Charge 1 – sexual penetration of a child under 16, the objective gravity of the offence is marked by the young age of the victim, who was then between 11 and 12, and the breach of trust involved in the offending.  Otherwise, it was an isolated incident, lasting for a few moments, and with no accompanying threats or use of force.  In making this observation, I remain conscious of the significant impact of your offending on the victim, which I have also taken into account.  I assess this as a lower than mid-range example of this offence.

78The sentence I have imposed falls below the standard sentence having regard to this fact, and in the weight I have attached to the matters in mitigation to which I have referred, including your guilty plea, Bugmy considerations, delay and the added burden of your experience of custody.

79I consider the objective gravity of Charge 2 to be higher.  Firstly, this is a rolled-up charge reflecting multiple occasions of offending against the victim, over a prolonged period.  The offending was also aggravated by the age disparity, significant breach of trust, and the use of force on one occasion.  Although one maximum penalty applies to a rolled-up charge, the sentence I impose must reflect the overall criminality of your conduct.  The sentence I have imposed falls somewhat short of the standard sentence given the weight I have attached to your guilty plea, and other matters in mitigation.

80It is necessary that there be some cumulation of the sentences I impose on each charge, to reflect your offending against each of the victims, conscious that the sentencing principle of totality also applies.

Sentence

81Balancing the matters to which I have referred, while guided by the maximum penalty and the standard sentence for the offences, I sentence you as follows.

82On Charge 1 – sexual penetration of a child under 16 – you are convicted and sentenced to three years, six months' imprisonment.  This is the base sentence.

83On Charge 2 – a rolled-up charge of sexual assault of a child under 16 – you are convicted and sentenced to three years, six months' imprisonment.

84I order that one year, six months imprisonment of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1. This give a total effective sentence of five years' imprisonment. Pursuant to s11A of the Sentencing Act 1991, I fix a non-parole period of three years.

85

Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that 322 days of

pre-sentence detention be reckoned as served under the sentence I have imposed.

86Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had you not pleaded guilty to these offences, the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is a sentence of six years, six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years, six months.

87Finally, your offending attracts the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and you are a registrable offender. Your reporting obligations under that Act are for life.

- - -