Director of Public Prosecutions v Kelly
[2012] VSC 398
•10 September 2012
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MILDURA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. S CR 2012 0054
| THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| KELVIN KELLY |
---
JUDGE: | KAYE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Mildura | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 23 August 2012 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 10 September 2012 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Kelly | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2012] VSC 398 | |
--
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Severe beating of victim with fists – Accused intoxicated – Long history of alcohol related previous offending – Accused chronic alcoholic – Relevance of Aboriginality and disadvantaged background – Plea of guilty – Remorse – Insight by accused – Prospects of rehabilitation.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Ms D Karamicov | The Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr S Kennedy | Tait Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Kelvin Kelly. You have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter, by an unlawful and dangerous act, of Thomas Greenaway on 17 November 2011.
The incident, which led to the death of Thomas Greenaway, took place three days earlier in your home in Harrison Street, Swan Hill. Mr Greenaway was an acquaintance of yours, and on previous occasions he and you had consumed large quantities of alcohol together.
During the morning of 14 November 2011, you met with Dianne Roberts and her son Richard Roberts in Harrison Street, Swan Hill. You had had an intimate relationship with Ms Roberts over a period of five or six years. When you met with her that morning, you were observed to be slightly affected by alcohol. You requested Ms Roberts to come to your home to drink with you, but she declined. However, Richard Roberts accompanied you to your home, where you both consumed a cask of wine together.
At about lunch time, Mr Roberts and you walked to the main street of Swan Hill, where you purchased a further cask of wine. From there, you visited another friend. Thomas Greenaway was then at the home of that person. There, Mr Greenaway, Mr Roberts and you consumed wine from the cask, which you had purchased. At your invitation, Mr Greenaway and Mr Roberts accompanied you to your home. Mr Greenaway brought his own cask of wine with him.
The three of you arrived at your home at approximately 3.00 pm. During the afternoon, you sat in the lounge room talking, drinking cask wine and port, and listening to music. At some point, you began to argue with Mr Greenaway. By then, you were quite intoxicated. You got it into your mind that he had been having sex with Ms Roberts, and you began arguing with him. You walked around the lounge room kicking chairs and verbally abusing him.
At that stage, you asked Richard Roberts to fetch his mother, who was then at her sister’s place, which was five houses away. When Dianne and Richard Roberts returned to your house, they found you in the street, intending to visit a neighbour to ask for cigarettes. The three of you then returned together to your home. When Ms Roberts entered your home, she saw Thomas Greenaway, coming from the direction of the toilet. She described him as looking like a mess. His face was swollen and bleeding, and his head and jaw were swollen. Part of his lip was hanging off. She said that you were pacing around the lounge room “all fired up”. Ms Roberts asked you what had happened, and you responded “He shit me so I hit him”. Thereupon, you ordered Mr Greenaway to leave your house.
At that stage, Mr Greenaway was sitting in the armchair. You approached him, and struck him with a number of hard punches to his head. Richard and Dianne Roberts both then restrained you, and you sat down for a few seconds and drank quickly from a cup of wine. Ms Roberts stated that, at that point, you were still “all fired up”, and she and Richard were trying to calm you down.
At that point, Mr Greenaway was unable to talk, and he was drifting in and out of consciousness. You went to punch him again, because he would not leave, but Dianne Roberts was able to intercept and stop you.
At about that stage, Mr Greenaway was able to stand up, and he went to leave via the front door. As he was doing so, you punched him a few more times to the head. Eventually, Richard Roberts was able to restrain you, and Mr Greenaway walked outside.
Richard Roberts walked outside with Mr Greenaway. When he reached the gutter, he fell over backwards, and remained lying on his back. As he did so, his head connected with the surface of the road.
In the meantime, Dianne Roberts had gone to a neighbour’s house to call for an ambulance. When she returned, she found Mr Greenaway lying on the ground. While he was there, you approached him. Although you have no recollection of doing so, four witnesses saw you kick him at least once. Three of those witnesses (Dianne Roberts, Alan Mack and Sharon Zielke) each described how you kicked Mr Greenaway in the head. Two of those witnesses (Alan Mack and Sharon Zielke) stated that you also spat on him.
Shortly after, the ambulance arrived, and conveyed Mr Greenaway to the Swan Hill Hospital. On admission to the hospital, examination revealed a number of facial injuries, and a scan demonstrated the existence of an extensive left sided subdural haematoma (bleeding on the brain). X-rays also disclosed fractures to the nasal and associated bones. Mr Greenaway was transferred to the Alfred Trauma Centre for management of his head injury. There, he underwent urgent surgery. However, the extent of the bruising, and the associated swelling of the brain, was such as to have occasioned irreparable and extensive brain injury. Thomas Greenaway did not regain consciousness after his admission to the Alfred Hospital, and he died on 17 November 2011.
The forensic pathologist determined that the cause of Mr Greenaway’s death was a blunt head injury. He expressed the view that the acute subdural haemorrhage was associated with a substantial head injury.
The police attended at your home in Harrison Street, Swan Hill, shortly after the arrival of the ambulance. The police, who attended, described you as being clearly intoxicated. You were arrested and remanded in custody, and you were conveyed to hospital for treatment of withdrawal symptoms from the alcohol.
On the next morning, 15 November, you were interviewed by police. You told the police that you had become drunk and jealous, that you accused Mr Greenaway of having an affair with Ms Roberts, and that you then bashed him. You described how, having become intoxicated, you “just flipped”. You told the police that you punched Mr Greenaway about ten or fifteen times to the head and mouth. You said that you had kept “hooking” him, as he sat in the armchair, every time you walked past him, as you paced around in the lounge room. You told the police that you did not hit Mr Greenaway out the front, because he was already lying in the gutter. You stated that you tried to pick him up, that he was like a dead weight, so you left him lying there to go and get the ambulance. As I stated, four witnesses have described how, in fact, you kicked Mr Greenaway while he was on the ground. I accept that when you were interviewed you may not have recalled doing so, but I accept the evidence of those witnesses.
By your plea of guilty in this case, you have admitted to killing Thomas Greenaway by a brutal assault, which any reasonable person, in your position, would have realised would have exposed him to an appreciable risk of serious injury. The crime of manslaughter is a very serious offence. The maximum sentence is 20 years’ imprisonment. In this case, you subjected a wholly innocent person, who was a guest in your home, to a brutal beating. Thomas Greenaway gave you no cause for the vicious assault which you unleashed on him. There is no suggestion at all that you were responding to any perceived threat by you to your safety, or that Mr Greenaway had provoked you.
The fact that you struck Mr Greenaway repeatedly, over a period of time, and the fact that throughout the assault he was defenceless, add to the seriousness of your offending. In addition, I accept the submission, by the prosecution, that the gravity of your offending was aggravated by the fact that, when Mr Greenaway was lying defenceless in the gutter, you kicked him, and spat at him. Although the kick, which you administered to Mr Greenaway, was not particularly hard, nevertheless those actions demonstrated an unacceptable contempt by you for your innocent victim.
On your plea, Ms Karamicov, who appeared for the prosecution, submitted that, although this case does not fall within the worst category of cases of manslaughter, it is towards the highest level of manslaughter cases, because of the amount of injuries sustained by Mr Greenaway, and because of the protracted nature of your assault on him.
I am satisfied that this case falls well outside the worst categories of instances of manslaughter which come before this Court. Such cases ordinarily involve groups of young men, bent on violence, acting in company in carrying out vicious assaults with weapons on innocent victims. By contrast, in this case, I am satisfied that your assault on Mr Greenaway was not premeditated; rather, it was the product of the suspicion which dawned on you, when you were intoxicated, that Mr Greenaway had been having an affair with your girlfriend. Your assault on Mr Greenaway did not involve the use of any weapon. It is true that the assault was not instantaneous, and that it consisted of a number of blows over a period of time. However, on the evidence, it was not over a protracted period of time. Certainly, there are serious features of your offending, to which I have already referred. However, I am satisfied that this case falls well below the more serious categories of the instances of manslaughter which are heard in this Court.
At the time of his death, Thomas Greenaway was only 45 years of age. He had many good years of life ahead of him. Thomas Greenaway was a much loved member of his family. I have read, and re-read, the victim impact statements of his mother, of his ex-partner (who has described the effect of his death on his younger children), of his other two children, of his two sisters and of his brother. Four of those victim impact statements were read to the court at the hearing of your plea. Thomas Greenaway was the primary victim of your crime. However, it is clear that those, and other members, of his family, are also victims of it. They have each suffered significant grief, trauma and loss as a result of your criminal actions. I have no doubt that their deep anguish will persist long after you have completed any jail sentence, which I am to impose on you. The victim impact statements of those persons are a salutary reminder of the seriousness of your wrongdoing, and of the profound nature of the effects of it.
You have an extensive previous criminal history, dating back over the last 20 years. During that time, you have come before the courts on criminal charges on no less than 28 different occasions. Each time you appeared before a Magistrates’ Court. Those appearances have resulted in a finding of guilt against you of 145 previous offences. Of those offences, 17 were for assault or similar offences; 27 were for offences consisting of the use of alcohol (such as being drunk in a public place); and 12 were for breaches of previous court orders. On numerous occasions, you have been given dispositions by the court directed to your rehabilitation, and, specifically, to your long standing alcohol addiction. Your last appearance, before the offence in this case, was before the Swan Hill Magistrates’ Court in September 2010, on charges involving, among others, assault, behaving in an offensive manner in public, and intentionally destroying property. On the charges of assault, you received a one month term of imprisonment, wholly suspended for six months. The other charges were adjourned for a period of twelve months without conviction. It would appear that you did not breach the terms of the suspended sentence, nor did you offend during the adjourned period of those charges.
You were born on 30 April 1974, and you are now 38 years of age. You are an Aboriginal man of the Wemba Wemba people. You were raised in the Bendigo area. Your parents separated when you were an infant. Your mother then had a relationship with an abusive man who was the father of your brother. You were physically and sexually abused by your stepfather until the age of 9 years.
At an early age, your family moved to Swan Hill, where you received your primary education. You were educated at Swan Hill Technical School until Year 8, when you were expelled. You then spent six months at Thierry College in Broadmeadows. You performed quite well in your studies, both in Swan Hill, and Thierry. However, when you attended Thierry College, you boarded with an aunt in Preston. From there you gravitated to the company of some of the Koori population in the city. On doing so, you took to meeting with members of that community, and drinking alcohol very heavily. You began consuming alcohol by the age of 15 years, and by your late adolescence, you were drinking spirits on a daily basis. Subsequently, you took to drinking cask wine and port. Since that young age, your life has been blighted by the abuse, on a significant scale, of alcohol, and also of other substances.
You abandoned your education at Thierry College. Subsequently, you embarked on a building apprenticeship, which lasted only a couple of months. Since then, you have had little gainful employment. Rather, the whole of your life has been wasted, being dedicated to the regular abuse and excessive consumption of alcohol.
At the age of 24 years, you met a woman, Vanessa, with whom you shared a relationship for some years. However, during that time, you did not abstain from alcohol. You have two daughters by that relationship, aged 13 years and 11 years respectively. Regrettably, you have had very little contact with them. Your relationship with Vanessa ended when your two daughters were infants.
Since then, you have continued in your lifestyle of consuming excessive quantities of alcohol, almost on a daily basis. On a number of occasions, you have successfully completed periods of rehabilitation. However, as your mother has described in a testimonial tendered to the court, on each occasion, you would return to your home in Harrison Street. There, other persons, who shared your habit of abusing alcohol, would join you, and would tempt you to return to your lifestyle of alcoholism. You have consistently lacked the willpower, and the capability, to resist the temptation to resume your alcohol habit, which has got you into so much trouble in the past, and which was the root cause of your offending in this case.
It is clear, from your extensive record of previous offending, that you have difficulty staying out of trouble when you do indulge in excessive use of alcohol. As I understand it, virtually all of your previous convictions have occurred while you have been under the influence of alcohol. The abuse by you of alcohol has caused you, time and again, to re-offend, and to become a chronic recidivist.
On your plea, I received a report from Dr Lester Walton, a consultant psychiatrist, who examined you on 30 May 2012, and a report of Mr Bernard Healey, a clinical psychologist, who examined you on 4 August 2012. Both of those reports, unsurprisingly, state that you are an alcohol dependent person, and that your eventual rehabilitation will be conditional upon your ability to overcome your alcohol problem. You are particularly fortunate that, notwithstanding your long standing abuse of alcohol, you do not seem to have suffered any intellectual impairment. Dr Walton indicates that your underlying intelligence is normal. Mr Healey’s report states that, during your detoxification while in prison, you have made a reasonable recovery, and that your powers for delayed recall are quite sound. During your plea, I invited you to speak to me from the witness box. You demonstrated to me that, when you are abstinent, you are quite articulate, and that you have the ability to live a worthwhile life, if you are able to succeed in breaking the cycle of your alcohol dependence.
That brings me to your previous convictions. Those convictions are clearly relevant to the sentence which I must impose on you. There is little information about your previous convictions, apart from the nature of the offences which you committed, and the sentences imposed on you by the court. Nevertheless, with two exceptions, the level of your offending in each case was substantially less than in this case. In December 1999, you were dealt with by the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on a charge of recklessly causing injury. You were convicted and placed on a community based order for 12 months. In 1995, you were convicted by the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on charges of intentionally causing serious injury and making a threat to kill. You were sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 12 months. Apart from those two occasions, each of the other offences, involving violence, resulted in convictions for common assault.
From your criminal record, two observations may thus be made. First, with two exceptions, each of which were some time ago, your offending in the past has been most significantly less serious, both in nature and degree, than the offending which was involved in this case. Secondly, and importantly, your previous history does not reveal a pattern of escalating violence, which culminated in the offence which brings you before this Court.
My observations in that respect are reinforced by the evidence of Richard Roberts, in cross-examination at the committal proceeding. Mr Roberts stated that he had never seen you behave like you did on this particular occasion, and that you were acting in a very different manner than he had ever seen you behave previously. He agreed with the proposition that, on this occasion, you were in some “strange state”, and that you seemed to be in another world.
Your previous criminal history is particularly relevant to the sentence, which I must impose. Your repeated offending demonstrates that the community needs to be protected from you. It is also relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation, a matter to which I shall shortly return. In addition, your previous offending is relevant to the level of your culpability in the present case. Notwithstanding that this case is far more serious than your offending in the past, nevertheless you are a man who has a long history of offending while intoxicated, and, on a number of occasions, of offending by committing crimes of violence.
On your plea, Ms Karamicov submitted that your consumption of alcohol on the day of the offence is a factor, which should aggravate the seriousness of the offence, which you have committed, and which thus should weigh in favour of a heavy sentence to be imposed upon you. She submitted that, on that day, you recklessly chose to consume alcohol, with the knowledge that you had a propensity to become angry under the influence of alcohol, and to resort to violence, as you had done in the past. Thus, she submitted, you made a conscious and deliberate choice to consume alcohol, knowing the likely consequences of doing so.
The submission by Ms Karamicov does have some force. However, having given it careful consideration, I do not accept it. First, as I have just observed, I am satisfied that the level and seriousness of the violence, which you inflicted on Mr Greenaway, was far greater than that to which you had been previously inclined while under the influence of alcohol in the past. In the cases, to which Ms Karamicov referred me, the court had noted that the particular accused had consumed alcohol well knowing, from past experience, that when he was intoxicated he was likely to be violent.[1] The nature of your previous convictions, and the evidence of Mr Roberts at your committal, satisfy me that your offending, in this case, was significantly different to that, in which you had previously indulged when intoxicated. Further, as I have observed, your pattern of past offending does not reveal an escalating level of violence.
[1]R v Hay [2007] VSCA 147, [32] (Maxell P); DPP v Dowie [2009] VSCA 154, [19] (Coghlan AJA); R v Martin (2007) 20 VR 14, [53] (Maxwell P, Nettle and Redlich JJA).
The second reason, why I do not accept Ms Karamicov’s submission, relates to your long standing alcohol problem, and to the connection of it with your Aboriginality. In referring to these matters, I make it clear that I do not regard your history of alcoholism, or the fact that you are an Aboriginal person, to be mitigating circumstances. The courts have made it plain that it would be wrong for the community to harbour a belief that serious violence, by drunken persons within their society, is treated by the law as offending which attracts some degree of leniency. Clearly, it does not.
Nevertheless, while drunkenness is not normally an excuse or a mitigating factor, nevertheless it would be wrong, and unjust, to ignore the long standing and deep seated socio-economic circumstances and environment, in which you spent your formative years, and which, I am satisfied, played a significant role in the development by you of your problem with alcoholism.
Notwithstanding the valiant attempts of your mother, it is clear that you come from a deprived background, deriving from your early childhood experiences, and also from the traumatic circumstances relating to a long lost brother, who, when you were very young, had got into serious trouble in the United States. Connected with all that are the circumstances that, from your early to mid-teens, you became trapped in the cycle of chronic and significant alcohol abuse which, tragically, afflicts too many of our Koori population. As I stated, those factors do not at all mitigate the sentence, which I must impose upon you, or entitle you to any leniency. However, in my view, they are relevant, as negating the argument that, on this occasion, you consciously chose to indulge in the excessive consumption of alcohol, well knowing the likely consequences of doing so.
As I stated, your repeated previous offending, and the seriousness of your offending in this case, are relevant to the issue of your rehabilitation. In the absence of any other factors in your favour, I would have little confidence that you would be able to rehabilitate yourself after you have completed the term of imprisonment, which I must impose upon you. However, there are a number of factors, from which I have concluded that you do have positive prospects of rehabilitation, although my conclusion in that respect must be guarded.
First, upon being interviewed on 15 November, you made full and frank admissions. In doing so, you did not seek to minimise the level of violence which you inflicted on Mr Greenaway. Importantly, you did not suggest, in any way whatsoever, that Mr Greenaway gave you any cause for your vicious assault on him, or that he was in any respect to blame for it. Those admissions and your plea of guilty are important, because they constitute an acknowledgment and acceptance by you of your responsibility for your conduct. Put simply, you have not sought to shift or minimise your blameworthiness at all.
Secondly, as I have earlier noted, at my invitation, you spoke to me from the witness box. Although you were not on oath, I nevertheless gained the strong impression that what you said to me was sincere and honest. Your counsel, Mr Kennedy, had stated to me that you were deeply remorseful for your actions, and for the pain which you have inflicted on others. When you spoke to me, I gained the firm impression that Mr Kennedy’s instructions were correct. You expressed, and displayed, real remorse to me for what you have done to Mr Greenaway, and for the pain which you have caused to his mother, his children, and to his siblings.
Thirdly, and connected with that, when you spoke to me, you demonstrated that you have good insight into the fundamental causes of your offending, both in the past, and on this occasion, namely, your alcohol addiction, and your associated problems of anger management.
Fourthly, you have taken some early steps to address those issues. You have applied to undergo courses, which will address your problems with alcohol and anger management. You are undertaking work in the laundry of the prison, and you are keeping company with the working crew, who have a similar commitment as you to remaining out of trouble. You have not offended against prison discipline, and your random urine tests have all been negative. In addition, you have clearly thought about your future. You are setting for yourself sensible, achievable goals.
The fifth factor, which weighs in favour of your rehabilitation, is that you have good family support. Your mother and your brother were in court to support you during your plea. A testimonial by your mother was tendered to me. I was impressed by the level of understanding which your mother has of your problems. She is clearly a remarkable woman, who, in difficult circumstances, has done her best for you and your siblings. It would therefore seem that, when you are ultimately released, you will have a beneficial level of family support.
All of those factors persuade me that, notwithstanding your extensive criminal history, and the seriousness of your offending in this case, there are sound reasons for expressing some confidence in your future rehabilitation. As I stated, my assessment of those prospects must be guarded, because of the long standing nature of your alcohol and anger management problems, and your proclivity to persistently re-offend in the past. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that it would be appropriate to allow for a potential period of parole, which is a bit longer than would otherwise have been the case.
In expressing that view, I emphasise that it is essential that, during your period of imprisonment, you have available to you, and you undergo, appropriate courses to address your alcohol problem, and also to address your anger management problem. It is also most important that you receive some vocational training which will help to equip you to fit into the community when you are released. As a member of a people with a rich and invaluable cultural heritage, I encourage you to take the opportunity while in jail to make a meaningful connection with that culture, which, I believe, would substantially assist you in your rehabilitation.
There are other mitigating circumstances in your case, to which I have already referred. First, there are the frank admissions which you made to the police, and which I take into account in your favour. Secondly, there is your plea of guilty. That plea was made by you shortly after the matter was resolved on 29 June 2012. Thus, you pleaded guilty after the one day committal proceeding at the Magistrates’ Court in Swan Hill, and between the first and second directions hearings in the Supreme Court. However, the stage at which you pleaded guilty must be considered in context. Until you pleaded guilty, you had been charged with murder. At the committal proceeding, you did not contest the truth of the evidence of any of the witnesses who gave evidence. Rather, the cross-examination of the witnesses was directed to the level of your culpability, and also, to some extent, to the issue of causation, which was a potential issue, which might have been agitated at your trial.
In those circumstances, while it might be fairly said that you did not plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity, nevertheless I consider that your plea of guilty was made at an appropriate stage in the proceeding. As I have already observed, it is an important recognition and acknowledgment by you of your guilt in this case. In addition, your plea of guilty has spared a number of witnesses the inconvenience of giving evidence in the case, and has saved the resources of the court and the prosecution. Much more importantly, your plea of guilty has spared the family and loved ones of Thomas Greenaway the ordeal of a trial, which, no doubt, would have provoked traumatic memories for them. For those reasons, you are entitled to a significant credit for your plea of guilty.
Further, as I have already noted, I accept that you are genuinely remorseful for your actions, for depriving Thomas Greenaway of his life, and for the pain and anguish which you have occasioned to his family.
In summary, then, your offending in this case was serious. It involved a high and persistent degree of violence against a defenceless man, who gave you no cause to assault him. Your offending was aggravated by your conduct in kicking him and spitting on him while he was on the ground. You have an extensive history of previous offending, nearly all of which has involved the abuse by you of alcohol. On the other hand, there are important mitigating circumstances, which I take into account in your favour. In particular, I take into account your plea of guilty, your frank admissions to the police, your remorse, and your insight into the level of your offending, the pain which you have caused to the victims, and the causes of your offending. I also take into account my assessment, albeit guarded, that you have positive prospects of rehabilitation.
In determining your sentence, it is necessary that the sentence, which I impose on you, be such as to adequately express the condemnation by this Court, and the community, of your wrongdoing, and to uphold the sanctity of human life. It is important that the sentence, which I am to impose upon you, be of sufficient severity to serve as a lesson to others, and to constitute a clear message to the community that this Court will not tolerate drunken violence of the kind in which you indulged in this case. It is also important that the sentence be such as to teach you a lesson, and, in particular, to reinforce your understanding of the destructive path on which you embark when consuming alcohol. The sentence must also be such as to provide appropriate protection to the community, at least until you have had the opportunity to rehabilitate yourself. On the other hand, as I have already stated, the sentence which I shall impose will involve a potential parole period, which is sufficient to enhance your prospects of rehabilitation. It is in the community’s interest, as well as your own, that, on completion of your sentence, you be safely rehabilitated into society.
Taking those matters into account, and bearing in mind the mitigating circumstances to which I have referred, I sentence you as follows. I sentence you to 7 years and 6 months imprisonment. I fix a minimum non-parole period of 5 years. Pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that 301 days be reckoned as served under the sentence, and I shall cause that declaration to be noted in the records of the Court.
As I have already stated, I have taken into account, in your favour, the fact that you have pleaded guilty. Section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act requires me to state the sentence, and the non-parole period, which I would have imposed, but for your plea of guilty. That exercise is somewhat artificial in this case, because of the interrelationship of your plea with other mitigating factors, and, in particular` with your frank admissions, your remorse, and your insight into your wrongdoing and the causes of it. Nevertheless, and with that qualification in mind, for the purposes of s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment, together with a minimum non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.
0
3
0