Director of Public Prosecutions v Keene

[2020] VCC 2021

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 20-01585

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

CHRISTOPHER KEENE

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 December 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 December 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Keene
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 2021

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:

Catchwords:

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:

Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr B. Nibbs	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Mortley	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

1Christopher Keene, on 11 January 2019, you travelled home from work with the victim to where you were living with her in Drysdale.  You had been in a relationship for six or so months since your release from prison.

2Once home with her, you both went to a neighbour's for drinks and socialising.  The victim went home earlier than you, but you followed later.  Relevant to what happened thereafter is that an argument broke out with you then displaying serious violence.  You gripped the victim around the throat and threw her to the ground.  You issued a chilling threat to kill the victim.  You then took her keys to drive away.  You said later that you just wanted to be on your own to deal with your anger and frustrations.  However, the victim got into the car as well, trying to get her keys and phone.  You drove off.  The victim asked you to stop so she could get out, but you did not stop. 

3You then drove along the Bellarine Highway at high speed in a reckless fashion.  Contact had been made with the police and when the police rang the victim while in your car, your anger increased.  You made further chilling threats.  You later stopped the car at a hotel in Moorlap and got out.  The victim was able to get away and get help.  You were arrested later that evening in the hotel car park.  You were remanded in custody. 

4The victim had multiple bruises and tenderness to her throat and back.  What was more lasting were the victim's psychological stressors as set out in her victim impact statement written on 30 January 2019.  She wrote that the events of 11 January 2019 had left her heartbroken and so scared that she is not sure if she ever will recover.  She has difficulty or cannot sleep or eat properly and is too scared to leave the house.  She will never understand, she says, why you did what you did to her and hurt her so badly.  She begged you to stop the car, but you did not.  She has, as a result, lost trust in people and she feels she is scarred for life.  She does not socialise or go out as she did before.  She said she just wants to feel safe and not in pain, she is distraught and so frightened by all of this that she is not sure how she is going to deal with it and go forward.  She notes that she has enough stress and depression already and the attack upon her just made it worse.  She said she wants to be happy, but she feels she will not be for a long time. 

5This offending is yet another example of a violent man hurting and frightening a woman by dreadful aggression and threats.  This sort of violence is a scourge.  Beyond that, as I will elaborate upon, you endeavour to continue your domination of the victim from within custody in your phone calls seeking to have the case against you undermined.  This is an offence against justice and is serious offending. 

6The Court of Appeal has had to state and restate that violence by men against women must be denounced by the imposition of stern sentences that also operate as a deterrent to other cowardly men whose cases include Pasinis[1], Meyers[2], Filiz[3], Kalala[4], Lamb and there are others.  They all have the same important theme and direction to sentencing judges to ensure that violence by men towards women is appropriately and sternly punished. 

[1]Pasinis [2014] VSCA 97

[2]Meyers [2014] VSCA 314

[3]Filiz [2014] VSCA 212

[4]Kalala [2017] VSCA 223

7So accordingly, in your case the primary sentencing purposes are denunciation of your dreadful violence, your threats and your endangerment and deterrence to you and to others.  Deterrence to you is a weighty matter because you have a concerning history of criminal convictions for violence and breach of family violence orders in Victoria and in other Australian States. 

8In assessing the gravity of your crimes, plainly these are serious and frightening crimes committed over a period of time that afternoon and evening.  Of course, there are, sadly, worse examples of ongoing persistent violence towards women, but that is not said to diminish what you did on this day.

9With respect to the gravity of the subsequent offending of perverting the course of justice and persistently breaching intervention orders, I do refer to what Eames J said in the case of Ayden & Kirsch[5] that the offence of pervert the course of justice may embrace a wide spectrum of criminal conduct which means that it is difficult for a sentencing judge to assess just where in the sentencing range for the offence any case ought to be regarded as falling.

[5]Aydin & Kirsch [2005] VSCA 86

10His Honour noted a view had been expressed by the Victorian Parliamentary Law Reform Committee that:

'The gravity of the offence can vary greatly due to the infinitely variable nature of the conduct which might be involved.'

11That said, your offending was of a violent man endeavouring to undermine prosecution for family violence.  This is a matter of considerable concern to the criminal justice system and to the community.

12In this case, endeavouring as I said, to have the victim withdraw, altered or disown her statement is serious and undermines justice.  It was persistent and involved another person so as to increase the pressures.  Although not impacting on the gravity of your offending your prior convictions for violence within a relationship increase your moral culpability here and means the protection of the community from you is a more prominent sentencing purpose. 

13Another aspect of your prior criminal history is that you were on a community corrections order at the time of this offending. 

14After your arrest, you were remanded in custody where you have remained to this point, a total of - and I will be corrected if it is inaccurate - 700 days.  Your counsel made submissions regarding what he contended was an extraordinary path your case has taken to this point since your arrest.

15His overall submission was that your time on remand was particularly onerous or made more onerous because of the uncertainty of the charges and the evidence that you had to confront and contend with.  Your counsel set out a detailed chronology which included the following matters. 

16The charges laid by the police following your arrest on 12 January 2019, I apologise if it was the 13th, but on or about 12 January, were efficiently managed it seems, enabling by 10 May 2019 for a matter to be finally determined by a magistrate in a contested summary hearing.

17Just prior to that date, an additional alternative charge of kidnapping was laid, a charge that is only triable on indictment, thus the contested hearing had to be adjourned and a committal was then later listed.  Prior to the committal and very proximate to a further bail application, charges of attempt to pervert the course of justice and persistent breach of the family violence order were laid.

18On 9 December 2019, at a contested committal, the prosecution endeavoured to support the new charges by producing or pointing a DVD containing seven days of audio from the prison Arunta calls.  There was no transcript, summary or particulars.  The new charges were discharged by the magistrate and also the magistrate excused the central witness, the victim, from giving evidence pursuant to the provisions of s.18 of the Evidence Act.

19Upon your committal to the County Court, the first directions hearing this court was on 28 January 2020.  It was there indicated that the prosecution would seek to have the victim give evidence.  Further it was raised that the question of a direct indictment for the prison offences was being considered. 

20Orders were made for the defence to file an application pursuant to s.198B of the Criminal Procedure Act for leave to cross-examine the victim.  On 2 March 2020, leave was granted, and cross-examination of the victim occurred after consideration was given to the operation of s.18 of the Evidence Act.  The victim was not excused from giving evidence.

21I heard that evidence, then gave directions to the prosecution to file by 24 March 2020, a prosecution summary of opening, an indictment and all the Arunta calls to be relied upon. The parties were encouraged to negotiate following what was learnt of the quality of the victim's evidence in the s.198B matter.

22It was, at that point, that is, being prior to the suspension of jury trials, considered that the trail was to be listed to be heard in one of the upcoming circuits in Geelong in 2020.

23The directions made regarding the opening, the indictment, or a direct indictment and proof from the Arunta calls were not complied with by 24 March.  Indeed, it was not until November 2020 that a direct indictment was filed.

24It is to be noted that the whole work environment of the profession was changed by necessary restrictions imposed to meet the risks of the pandemic.  Nonetheless, significant case management by the court continued, including in this case.  Through April, June, July, August and September before different judges of this court, it was heard, bail applications which were refused, and the parties were encouraged to engage in what has become known as Emergency Case Management.

25In July the court expressed concerns at the ongoing delay in the provision of the Arunta calls and the finalisation of the indictment. 

26On 21 August 2020, the court adjourned the Emergency Case Management hearing to enable the prosecution to resolve how the Arunta calls would be used and whether and what the prosecution would do in the face of firm views expressed that the kidnapping charge was an over-reach.  

27On 2 September, the prosecution indicated the charge of kidnapping would remain on the indictment.  Again, no decision had been made as to the Arunta calls and any direct indictment.

28On 20 October 2020, a directions hearing was heard in the court circuit list.  Again, the court was advised that no decision had been made as to the direct indictment.  An application for a sentence indication was raised and foreshadowed.  A sentence indication was listed for 23 November on the proviso that the prosecution gave the required consent.  The prosecution did consent to the sentencing indication hearing, however on 20 November, the prosecution filed a direct indictment containing the charges of attempt to pervert the course of justice and two charges of persistent breach of a family violence order.

29The sentence indication proceeded with respect to both indictments during the hearing.  On questioning, the prosecution conceded that by virtue of the consent of the prosecution, that though the prosecution submitted that you, the accused, ought receive further gaol that if the sentence indication was given indicating no more gaol would be imposed, that such a sentence would be within range and would not involve the sentencing judge falling into appellable error.

30The reasons for the question related to the conundrum that an accused is placed in, having received an indication sought, and then pleaded guilty, only to face a Director's appeal and the risk of further imprisonment.  I add that the prosecution's position at the sentence indication was that a plea to a false imprisonment would mean that the kidnapping charge would not be on the plea indictment.

31On 1 December 2020, I gave an indication that on a plea of guilty to both indictments, I would not impose further imprisonment. In practical terms, given that a further punishment or supervision under a community corrections order was well on the cards and indeed, indicated for supervised rehabilitation in the community on release, I arranged for a community corrections assessment. The prosecution has since pointed out the mention of the community corrections order in addition to a term of imprisonment made up of the time served on remand was not in strict compliance with s.207 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

32Beyond this, as I understood at the Sentencing hearing on 8 December 2020, the prosecutor informed the court that his instructions were that a sentence in accordance with the indication given on 1 December would involve appellable error.

33Notwithstanding this, you Mr Keene, pleaded guilty to the following charges: 

34A rolled-up charge of recklessly causing injury; One charge of a threat to kill; one charge of reckless conduct endangering life and one charge of false imprisonment. 

35On a separate indictment, you pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice and two charges of persistently breaching a family violence order.

36As noted, just to expand the attempting to pervert the course of justice involved you telephoning the victim or a friend to bring about the victim indicating to the police and/or the courts that her statements about the events of 11 January 2019, were not true.  The breach of the intervention order involved contacting the victim directly by telephone or indirectly via a friend.  There were multiple contacts separate from the calls that gave rise to the attempt to pervert the course of justice.  The intervention order was varied to permit contact with the victim from 5 April 2020. 

37I re-state and emphasise, that the way this matter has been prosecuted and the timing of the laying of new charges and in the end, the direct indictment are relevant to the stressors on you and the onerousness of your remand.  Sentencing in this case, and as a general point, is not about punishing anyone other than you, as the offender.

38With respect to the point made by your counsel as to the increased uncertainties and consequent stress upon you in custody during a period of very heightened onerousness of incarceration due to the pandemic, I conclude that it is a matter that I do give some mitigatory weight to in the overall synthesis. 

39Going from a contested summary hearing listed within four months of the offence to nearly 700 days later to receive a direct indictment, is a stressful scenario.  In all the circumstances, what has occurred here is a concerning example of how a trial in our criminal justice system can go off the rails causing stress to all parties, including the accused.

40As to your personal circumstances, there are bleak aspects.  You were born in Western Australia but raised in Victoria.  Your father was strict and used punishment, often violent, as a daily disciplinary regime.  However, you do not blame him or any of your family for your own flaws.  You were, in your own words, 'Totally uncontrollable' as a child and adolescent.  Your parents tried with discipline and with medication, but eventually gave up when you were 13.  You were then placed in State care.  Being in residential care saw you deteriorate, using the dexamphetamine medication given for your ADHD and binge drinking to the point of blackout. 

41At an early age, you moved to using all manner of drugs, cannabis, methylamphetamines, amphetamines, and heroin.  You instructed you were sexually abused by the residential care workers.  It seems to me your upbringing was chaotic, dysfunctional, and deprived.  You had no solid role models especially in your adolescent years when you were in State care.  The mitigatory principles described by the High Court in Bugmy[6] have application.  As was the case in Bugmy you have many prior convictions, the point being the mitigation that arises from your deprived upbringing remains, notwithstanding your recidivism.

[6] Bugmy [2013] HCA 37

42Your early introduction to drugs has meant  you have had a life-long and serious polysubstance abuse problem.  That said, you were in a period of abstinence from your release from custody in mid-2018.  You were not drug or alcohol affected at the time of these offences.  It is very much in your interest, and more importantly, in the community's interest, if you are able to remain drug-free upon your release, that is critical in the first initial hours, days and weeks, Mr Keene and you know that. 

43After you reached the age that brought an end to your being a Ward of the State, you were regularly in trouble with the law in the adult courts from the age of 18 which saw sentences, including detention in a Youth justice centre.  Thereafter you accumulated many convictions for dishonesty, driving, drug and violent offences.  You received fines, imprisonments to be served by way of intensive corrections order which were on breach, saw you imprisoned, commencing from the age of 21.  You were sentenced by the County Court in Victoria to two years with a minimum of 12 months non-parole period in early 2004.  Other sentences of imprisonment and community corrections orders were imposed through 2006 and 2009.

44You moved to South Australia and then Western Australia, accumulating prior convictions there as well as in the Northern Territory and in New South Wales. 

45In Western Australia, by the age of 24 to 25 you were in trouble often but also able to complete an apprenticeship as a boilermaker and gain well-paying outback work.  Your work enabled you to accumulate significant funds which you say were taken by an ex-partner causing you stress.

46You moved constantly.  You were involved in a number of relationships and have five children to four different partners.  You have little to do with your children. 

47As to your own physical health, you were involved in physical confrontations with the police in Western Australia which saw you hospitalised with multiple fractures to your neck.

48You have, nonetheless, been able to work and you held a job at a timber yard at the time of this offending.  Your prospects of gaining employment seem good.  You have always worked when not incarcerated.  That is a matter to your credit and should operate as a stabilising influence. 

49You were assessed by the psychologist, Mr Ball, who concluded you have a severe anti-social personality disorder.  You are naturally guarded and if confronted or pushed, you are likely to respond impulsively and angrily.  He fears you are likely to struggle with the rules and expectations in any drug treatment, although I note that you have been in abstinence which is supported by the negative drug assays from the prison.

50Mr Ball notes that those like you who have significant anti-social personality features that are regularly evident through adult years up to age of 40, are prone to develop severe and debilitating depressive symptoms in later life if there is no professional intervention.  These are concerning matters.  You told Mr Ball in his second follow-up assessment of you that you understood your anti-social personality disorder and the consequences for you.  This is not at a point of deep insight, but it is important that you understand that you need help to deal with your responses to frustration and relationship difficulties.  Exploding with anger is intolerable.  Adopting or taking up psychological treatment is or will be an important stabilising factor. 

51You have done what vocational courses you could in prison before restrictions prevented such courses and other rehabilitative courses from continuing.  As noted, your urine analyses were all clean.  You have a significant period of abstinence from drugs and it is hoped that that is now entrenched. 

52Your plea of guilty is a matter of considerable weight in all the circumstances of this case.  Having heard the victim's evidence, your plea relieved the prosecution of what would have been a significant task to prove all the charges that you then faced. 

53A plea, when jury trials have been suspended, is a matter of real mitigatory importance.  There remains no certain date for the resumption of jury trials in circuit courts. 

54Far greater level of restrictions upon prisoners since March 2020 also adds mitigatory weight into the equation.  Prison is harder and you have been on remand for a long time with uncertainty as to the charge and the case against you as I have mentioned already. 

55I had you assessed following a sentence indication hearing which was favourable to you.  I had you assessed as I have noted for a community corrections order.  The report concluded that you are unsuitable.  It seems in the report considerable weight was given to your past crimes and to your poor performance on community orders. 

56That was clarified this morning in evidence, or in discussions with the author of the report where it was pointed out or confirmed, that the significant matter that weight was given to be your prior history. 

57What was also noted was at your last community corrections order in terms of supervision and engagement, was positive, although the actual substance of your engagement remained uncertain, but you did do what you were asked to do.

58The regime of a court-ordered pre-sentence report is established by s.8A to 8D of the Sentencing Act.  Section 8A(2) requires a court to order a pre-sentence report if the court considers making a community corrections order. 

59The purpose of the court seeking a pre-sentence report is so that court, not the report writer, may establish the person is suitable for the order and establish whether necessary facilities exist, and if a community corrections order is being considered, gain advice concerning the most appropriate conditions to attach to the order. 

60The Statute requires the author to conduct any investigations the author thinks appropriate or are directed by the court.  It is common that the authors of such reports make investigations into the level of risk that you or anyone would present. 

61Unsurprisingly, given your history, you were assessed as being a high risk of reoffending.  The report went on to state the reasons why, as I have set out, you are considered unsuitable.  However, I am firmly of the view that the matters articulated by the Court of Appeal in Boulton[7] have application in this case. 

[7]Boulton [2014] VSCA 342

62That is, a community corrections order can further punish and simultaneously establish conditions that facilitate your rehabilitation.  Establishing conditions that facilitate your rehabilitation is a statutory mandate set out in the Sentencing Act.  To achieve that in your case will not be easy, but it cannot be simply abandoned.  The community is protected if you are reclaimed.  That is, the community is better off and safer if you are rehabilitated.  You do need targeted help and supervision, while at the same time being subject to this court's powers to re-sentence you if you breach the community corrections order. 

63The sentencing purposes that I have spoken of, being denunciation, deterrence to you and others and protection of the community and your rehabilitation are all best met by a gaol sentence of the order of the time that you have served on remand and then a lengthy and onerous community corrections order. 

64In my view, that form of order meets the questions posed in Boulton as to whether all sentencing purposes can be met by a community corrections order or, as in this case, a combined sentence of a community corrections order with gaol.

65It is not to the point that Corrections will find working with you hard, and perhaps the outlook for success is not bright, but that does not mean that I simply use gaol to effectively incapacitate you or warehouse you for a lengthy time. 

66Efforts to rehabilitate even the hardest cases must be part of the Corrections and the criminal justice system.  While prospects for successful reform may look bleak, there is no warrant in this case, to abandon efforts to reclaim you, so the community is protected, including women, that you may befriend.

67This has to be undertaken and by dealing directly with your personality flaws, your anger and impulsiveness, by programs that are directed or psychological intervention that is directed to these issues.

68All sentencing must be individualised in the synthesis of all matters for and against you.  In this case, I consider that this is a moment to seize, an order that a lengthy community corrections order in addition to the time you have spent on remand is the just and appropriate sentence. 

69By reason of your prior matters and the inevitable gaol term for the charge of threat to kill, you now become a violent offender.  This must be entered into the records of the court. 

70Further, I must ensure protection of the community is the primary sentencing purpose, which I have.  The ordinary principles governing concurrency or cumulation are also altered.  Cumulation is, in effect, the default unless I otherwise order.  The principle of totality is not entirely abandoned, but I must give proper application to the Parliament's intent with respect to serious offender provisions of the Act. 

71I am required to consider an order affecting your licence.  Such an order is punitive, and the particular circumstances of an accused may make disqualification from driving particularly punitive if it denies work opportunities or if the accused lives in a region of  Victoria without access to public transport. 

72Precisely where you are going to live is difficult to ascertain at this point.  There have been efforts to ensure that you are housed in the short term so as to take-up more permanent arrangements thereafter; where that will be is hard to know.  However, to make an order and its' length depends on a finding, the criminal standard as to your driving on the Bellarine Highway that gave rise to the charge of recklessly conduct endangering life.  The only evidence as to your speed is that of the victim.  No other report of any road user was forthcoming. 

73I had the benefit of hearing and seeing the victim's evidence, having confidence in her as to the precise details during that journey is difficult. 

74I am sure to the criminal standard, that you were driving in a reckless manner.  That follows from your plea of guilty to the offence.  As to the actual speed, in particular whether it was between 170 or 180, I am not sure, far from it, especially without any independent supporting evidence.

75I am unable to positively find any particular speeds, save that it was endangering, and your state of mind was reckless.  You were angry. 

76Thus, giving you the necessary benefit of the doubt, I will operate on the basis that you were driving at an excessive and dangerous speed, a speed more than 25 kilometres over the speed limit, thus your licence must be affected, it is cancelled and you are disqualified from driving for a period of three months. 

77As to the offences themselves, doing the best I can, in respect of the first indictment on Charge 1, recklessly causing injury, you are sentenced to eight months imprisonment.

78In respect to the second charge of threat to kill you are sentenced to eight months' imprisonment. 

79In respect of the charge of reckless conduct endangering life, you are sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

80In respect to the false imprisonment you are sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.  The orders for cumulation in respect of that indictment are that two months of the recklessly cause injury, four months of the threat to kill and one month of the false imprisonment are cumulative upon each other and on the charge of recklessly causing injury. 

81Just bear with me for a moment, there is a miscalculation.  I will just restate the sentence on the reckless conduct endangering life which I announced is 12 months.  It is ten months.  I just misread what I said.  So, the total effective sentence on that indictment is 17 months.

82For the crimes committed on the second indictment, that is, the attempt to pervert the course of justice, for that crime you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 14 months.

83In respect of the charges of persistent breach of the intervention orders, both charges, an aggregate sentence of four months is imposed.  One month of the aggregate sentence on the persistent breach charges is cumulative upon the attempt to pervert the course of justice, giving in respect of that indictment, a total sentence of 15 months. 

84I order that five months of the indictment involving the attempt to pervert the course of justice and the persistent breach is cumulative upon the sentence of 17 months imposed on the first indictment.  That gives a total sentence on both indictments of 22 months.  I declare that you have served 700 days in custody, that figure having been reckoned - is it accurate, 700?

85MR NIBBS:  I believe so, Your Honour.

86HIS HONOUR:  Yes. 

87That figure having been reckoned, I declare that as part of the sentence that I have just imposed, I will ensure that the declaration is entered into the records of the court so the prison authorities are left in no doubt that you have served the 700 days which is 22 months and about three weeks.  You have served all of the 22 months that I have just imposed. 

88I further order that you are convicted, and I impose on both indictments, a sentence of two years, or a community corrections order that will operate for two years.  Conditions of that community corrections order in addition to the mandatory provisions are that you must undergo treatment and assessment for your drug addiction; you must undergo treatment and assessment for your mental health problems; you must be under supervision; you must do programs that are directed to decrease your risk of reoffending and you must attend for judicial monitoring on 1 March 2021.  I think that is the date.  I am just going to check the date if I haven't got that wrong.  Sorry, it is 12 March at 9.30.  That appearance will be by default Webex at this stage. 

89Mr Keene, the other conditions that apply to a corrections order include the mandatory conditions; the most important is you must not commit a crime for which you could be imprisoned during the course of the two years.  That is critical to you.  That is how you have breached these orders. 

90If you come back, the punishment that I have imposed, which is merciful, will not, the mercy will not be repeated.  You will be just resentenced to another term of imprisonment.  That is almost absolutely inevitable, I would think, if you commit further offences. 

91In addition to that mandatory provision, there are others that relate to cooperation.  You have got to let the Office of Corrections know of any change of address or change of job.  You cannot leave Victoria without getting permission.  You have got to receive visits from the Office of Corrections.  You have got to comply with the conditions for matters under the Sentencing Regulations which I am told relate to identification and they will take photographs of you when they get the opportunity to do so and so on.  You have got to provide them with your telephone numbers. 

92Now Mr Keene, ordinarily we would get a document produced, you look at it, you would sign it, along with your lawyer.  That cannot happen.  Rather, what happens in these virtual hearings is that I ask you if you understand what the conditions of the community corrections order are.  Do you understand them?  We are just putting you off mute.  Do you understand them?

93OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

94HIS HONOUR:  Do you consent to the conditions and the order?

95OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

96HIS HONOUR:  I will just enquire of the lawyers if there is anything else I have got to do.

97MR NIBBS:  There was also the summary charge of driving whilst suspended, Your Honour.

98HIS HONOUR:  So sorry, the summary charge.  There is a summary charge of drive whilst disqualified.  That will be punished by the community corrections order that I have imposed.  There is no requirement on the licence with respect to that?  I thought you set it out if it ‑ ‑ ‑ 

99MR NIBBS:  No, it's a discretion.

100HIS HONOUR:  Yes, and if things arise, if he was affected by alcohol or drugs, but I read that, but there can be no finding in that regard, yes, thank you. 

101All right, had you pleaded not guilty to these offences and been found guilty of them, I would have imposed, it would be difficult to determine exactly how it would have run because of that likely different charges and various other things, doing the best I can, I would have imposed a sentence of four years' and three months' with a minimum of three years' and three months.  Anything further required?

102MR MORTLEY:  No, Your Honour.

103HIS HONOUR:  All the maths adds up in the way that I do it which is the way that I have always done it which is set a total effective sentence on one, then the other, cumulate from one to the other, and then set any other orders that flow from the overall sentence.  All right?

104MR NIBBS:  Yes, Your Honour.

105HIS HONOUR:  Okay, thank you.  If there is nothing further, I thank counsel for their considerable assistance over the whole course of this matter.  Mr Nibbs, thank you very much for your dedication to this task as the prosecutor firstly in that difficult matter, and Mr Mortley likewise.  I have to be elsewhere very quickly.  You do too, so head away.  I will sign the various orders in due course, and you will get copies of them.  Thank you. 

‑ ‑ ‑