Director of Public Prosecutions v Koers

[2017] VCC 1855

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-15-00908
CR-15-00909
CR-15-00910

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

GARRY KOERS
LANA MARINOVIC
PARIS MIZZI

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE HIGHAM
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 & 13 November 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 December 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Koers
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VCC 1855

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms J. Piggott	Office of Public Prosecutions
For Accused Koers For Accused Marinovic For Accused Mizzi	Mr B. Lindner Mr J. Williams Mr B. Newton	Lethbridges Barristers and Solicitors Matthew White and Associates Chester Metcalfe and Co

HIS HONOUR:

1Garry Andrew Koers, Paris Shane Mizzi and Lana Marinovic, you have each pleaded guilty to one charge of recklessly causing serious injury to Jason Hall.  The maximum penalty for this offence is a term of imprisonment of 15 years. 

2You, Mr Mizzi, have also admitted contravening a condition of bail, and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.

3The circumstances of your offending are as follows. 

4In mid-March 2014, Jason Hall met Ms Marinovic through a mutual friend, Peter Zervos.  Ms Marinovic had cause to leave her current address and was looking for somewhere to live.  She discussed with Mr Hall the possibility of moving into the bungalow at the back of his premises in Princes Street, Watsonia, and in any event, asked if she could place her belongings there until such time as they could agree terms of any rental.

5Mr Hall helped Ms Marinovic move her belongings from her residence in Reservoir to his address in Watsonia.  This required several trips.  Her belongings were placed temporarily in a back room of his home.  It was expected that Ms Marinovic would return to finalise arrangements for her moving in.  No key was given to her, nor was any agreement signed about
Ms Marinovic's status as a tenant or licensee.

6On Sunday 23 March 2014, someone broke into Mr Hall's property, and amongst the items taken was a newly-purchased TV set belonging to
Ms Marinovic.  Shortly after this discovery, Mr Hall rang 000, and the police attended some hours later.  Meanwhile, Mr Hall rang his friend Peter to tell him of the theft of the TV, and to find out whether you, Ms Marinovic, had taken it yourself.  Word got back to you, and you then questioned whether the television had in fact been taken by someone else or by Mr Hall himself. 

7Subsequently at about 3 am in the morning of 24 March 2014, Ms Marinovic went with Mr Mizzi to Zervos' home, and asked him to go with them and show them where Mr Hall lived.  Mr Koers was also asked to attend, arriving in his own vehicle.  At about 4.30 am Mr Hall, who was asleep in bed, heard a noise, footsteps, and then his front door being opened.  All of you three had entered the property.  Whilst standing in the bedroom doorway, you, Mr Mizzi, said "there he is", and then walked over to the victim's bed, demanding to know where Ms Marinovic's stuff was.  As you entered Mr Hall's bedroom you, Mr Mizzi, were carrying a samurai sword, some 3-4 feet in length.  Mr Koers at this time was outside the bedroom in the hallway.  You, Ms Marinovic, were also in the hallway outside of Mr Hall's bedroom door, saying repeatedly "Where's my fucking stuff?  Where's my fucking stuff?".  Mr Hall was then attacked.  During that attack you, Mr Mizzi, were demanding to know where Ms Marinovic's property was.  Mr Hall told you that it was in the back room. 

8You, Mr Mizzi, struck Mr Hall with the sword.  Mr Hall sustained a laceration injury to the right arm and right hand knuckle as he held both his hands up, trying to deflect the blows from the sword.  Mr Koers, meanwhile, attacked Mr Hall by striking him to the right side of the head with a tyre iron.  Mr Hall was struck with the sword twice, and once with the tyre iron.  He was also pushed against a computer desk in the hallway.  Mr Hall managed to make his escape by kicking open the back door to his property and leaping over the fence into the property next door.  You three were only in the house for about five minutes.

9I turn now to the seriousness of the offending.

10This was, in my view, serious offending.  Mr Hall was attacked in his own home.  Indeed, he was attacked whilst he was asleep in his own bed.  He was at the time alone in his home in a quiet suburban neighbourhood, and of course entitled to feel safe.  The attack occurred in the early hours of the morning.  There were three assailants, two of whom (Mr Mizzi and Mr Koers) were the active participants.  Ms Marinovic, by virtue of your plea of guilty, of course accept your criminal responsibility for the acts of your two friends and now co-accused.

11Weapons were used, most particularly the samurai sword.  Can I make it clear I sentence on the basis that the samurai sword had not been brought to the property.  But no matter where it was found, you, Mr Mizzi, entered the bedroom carrying the sword. 

12Ms Marinovic had barely known Mr Hall, and her only dealings with him had been to seek a temporary refuge, which he had offered to you.  Now, I accept, Ms Marinovic, that you had concerns over your property, believing that all your worldly goods were at risk, and further I accept that the television in question was an item that had meaning for you over and above its monetary worth.  Further, I accept that the initial purpose of the three of you going to Mr Hall's home address was to recover Ms Marinovic's property, and to make legitimate enquiry as to what had in fact happened to the television set.  I accept this was unplanned, and I accept that the agreement to assault was made whilst at the house.

13Nonetheless, this was in any view an unprovoked attack.  There appears to have been no discussion with Mr Hall as to the circumstances of the earlier burglary.  Indeed, there appears to be no discussion of anything prior to the assault.  Soon after arriving at Mr Hall's premises, and in circumstances of which I am still unclear, the assault had been agreed upon and put into effect.  This was a conscious, deliberate decision to resort to violence instead of finding out the circumstances of that which had occurred.

14The offending has also had a lasting impact upon your victim.  Mr Hall provided a Victim Impact Statement which was tendered on the plea.  He describes his stress and anxiety and paranoia following the attack.  He has had to move suburbs as a result of your offending.  He states he no longer has his children over to stay, as he is scared that something could happen to them whilst they are with him. The injuries he received included both a cut to his forehead and scarring and cuts to his right hand.  This was in addition to bruising on the face.  I was shown photographs on the plea of the injuries, and certainly the visual record confirms Mr Hall's account in his victim impact statement as to his injuries.  The most serious injury, and thus fulfilling the statutory criteria, were the cuts to his hand.  He suffered nerve damage in consequence, requiring two operations, and he has lasting symptoms consisting of lack of mobility, constant pins and needles, and his fingers freezing over at times of cold weather.  Whilst Mr Hall is thankfully left-handed, the injuries being to his right, it is clear that he feels his quality of life has been impacted adversely, in particular his ability to play sport with his children.  He states:

"I’m more curious and more careful everywhere I go now.  My eyes are always open and more aware.  I shouldn't have to live the way that I live."

So all three of you together have robbed Mr Hall of his sense of security and wellbeing.  This is a continuing legacy for him of your offending. 

15I turn now to your personal circumstances. 

16Garry Koers, your date of birth is 19 April 1962, and you are thus now 55 years of age, and you were 51, coming up to 52, at the time of this offence.  Your criminal record contains matters dating back to 1981.  You have been convicted of a range of offending, primarily drug possession and trafficking offences, in addition to theft, robbery, intentionally cause serious injury, assault, stalking, offensive behaviour, and breaching of intervention orders.  For these offences, you were dealt with by means of imprisonment and fines.  You have received one community based order and were convicted of breaching this order.  I regard your prior conviction on 1 August 2006 for the offences of intentionally cause serious injury and false imprisonment as relevant to the exercise of my sentencing discretion.

17You grew up in Reservoir, the second youngest of five children.  Your father was a violent alcoholic, and you witnessed his violence to both your mother and to your siblings.  One of your brothers tragically suicided in Port Phillip Prison.  One of your sisters has passed away from Motor Neurone Disease.  Your oldest brother is a retired senior fire officer who lives in Queensland, and has never been involved in the criminal justice system.  Your remaining sister works in the field of mental disability, and again, she has no prior criminal convictions.  You have looked after your mother when at liberty to do so for the last 15 years as her primary carer.  She suffers from dementia, and is now resident in a nursing home.  I am told she was admitted into residential care as a direct result of your arrest in May 2016. 

18You left school at 15, and for the next 14 years, worked at KFC as a cook, so as to support your mother, your father having left when you were 13 years of age.  From 1980 to 1990, you worked as a postie for Australia Post, and with your earnings, you bought a home in Watsonia, and in 1990, had a granny flat built for your mother at the rear of the premises.  So it would seem up until this time, you have been a hardworking, decent, caring man with only two court appearances.  In 1990, you bought a stake in a nightclub in Collingwood.  You managed other nightclubs throughout the 90s, and it was whilst in that trade that you first began to use amphetamine to any serious degree.  You developed a habit, and this is reflected in your criminal history.  Your subsequent history consists in periods of employment, and then relapsing into greater and greater drug use, consequent addiction, and consequent offending.

19On 1 June 2012, you received a total effective sentence of three years and six months, with a non-parole period of 27 months for offences including trafficking, both of amphetamine and methylamphetamine.  Methylamphetamine is without doubt a scourge in our community.   On 6 November 2013, you were paroled, and on 24 March 2014 you committed the incident offence.  Thus at the time of this offending, you had been out of custody for a mere four months. 

20Your involvement in this matter arose from you having known Ms Marinovic for about nine years in "an on-off relationship".  She contacted you on the night of 23-24 March 2014, asking for your help in moving her property out from
Mr Hall's home.  I am told that you did not know your co-accused, Mr Mizzi, or the victim Jason Hall, prior to this night.  You came in your own vehicle and followed Mr Mizzi and Ms Marinovic, and you understood at that point the purpose of the trip was to retrieve Ms Marinovic's possessions from Mr Hall's property.  I was told on the plea that some kind of argument developed whilst you were in the home, which led again, somehow, to you striking Mr Hall and then being punched in the right eye, in addition to the injury that you received.  I am told in the hallway you were struck in the back of the leg, and that the injury to your leg was received before you struck Mr Hall with the tyre iron.  You left the property with a significant injury to your leg.  The order of events and what prompted the assault upon Mr Hall remains unclear to me however, nor is it clear how the injury you received is to be viewed as a mitigatory factor. 

21I focus upon your role, your plea, and the joint criminal liability that your plea embraces, and the circumstances of the offending as I have found them.  Your role was one of a willing participant in an armed assault upon an innocent man. 

22Following your arrest on this matter, you were taken into custody for breaching your parole, and you served a further seven months of the sentence imposed upon you in 2012.  On 22 February 2016, you were sentenced to a 12-month Community Correction Order for offences of trafficking methamphetamine and possession of cocaine and amphetamine.  That order was breached by your failure to undergo treatment and rehabilitation as required by the condition, but more importantly and directly, by your committing further offences.  On 13 May 2016, a warrant was executed at your home address, where drugs, cash and assorted paraphernalia were located.  You pleaded guilty, amongst other things, to trafficking ecstasy, trafficking cannabis, trafficking heroin, and proceeds of crime offences, and simple possession charges.  On 4 October 2016, you were sentenced to a term of three years' imprisonment, with a
non-parole period of two years.  One hundred and forty-four days of presentence detention were declared.  Your earliest release date is therefore 12 May 2018, and the end date of your sentence is 12 May 2019. 

23I turn now to the submissions of your counsel, Mr Lindner, in mitigation. 

24He submitted that this offending presented at the lower end of the range for offences of recklessly causing serious injury.  I do not agree with that description of this offending.  The injuries to Mr Hall may not have been among more serious encountered in the spectrum of this offending, but that cannot be an end, in my view, of the assessment of its objective gravity.

25He submitted that on the facts, it was open to me to distinguish your sentence from that of your co-offender Mr Mizzi, having regard to the lesser injuries that you inflicted, and the injury that you yourself received.  However, I do not propose to distinguish between you and Mr Mizzi on the basis of your respective roles.  You and he were acting together.  You stood in close proximity to each other as the assault commenced, and you yourself were armed.

26Mr Lindner urged your plea of guilty as being representative of remorse, in addition to having a utilitarian value.  I make it clear I accept that submission.

27Mr Lindner urged upon me your loss of health and mobility, which he said had relevance in two respects.  Firstly, he submitted it went to your rehabilitation and the prospects thereof.  Mr Lindner submitted that the prospects of you being in front of the court again for an offence of this nature, which requires mobility, in the future, are not high.  In short, to quote Mr Lindner, "He is getting a bit old for this sort of conduct".  Your health, I was told, has deteriorated significantly in the last couple of years, to the extent that you are now reliant upon a walking stick for mobility, and that your age, now 55, and your declining health in terms of blood circulation, blood pressure, cholesterol and associated complaints are such as to limit your prospects for future offending of this kind.  I accept that your restricted mobility and declining health may confine the nature of any future offending, and represent the best prospect for your rehabilitation.  You have completed various courses in prison, which I am asked to have regard to as a measure of the rehabilitation that you have already achieved.

28In my view however, in light of your recent criminal history, and your history after this offending, for which you fall to be dealt with this morning, there can be no significant grounds for optimism as to the prospects of your rehabilitation.

29Secondly, Mr Lindner submitted that your health has deteriorated to the point where imprisonment will now be more burdensome for you.  No evidence was placed in front of me as to how your current imprisonment has proved more burdensome.  I was however provided with a list of your current medications.  On balance, and by virtue of your self-evident health issues, I give some, albeit limited, weight to this submission.

30Mr Lindner urged on your behalf the delay that has occurred between the offending and the final disposition.  I understand that some of this delay was due to a medical emergency requiring your urgent treatment.  However, the fact remains that you continued to offend after the commission of this offence, and indeed continued to offend on numerous occasions.  Nor can I accept the second limb of delay, that time weighed heavily upon you whilst this matter was hanging over your head.  Accordingly, I give little weight to this submission.

31Lastly, Mr Lindner, in his comprehensive and helpful submissions, urged upon me the principle of totality.  Mr Lindner submitted that because you have been in custody since 13 May 2016, after an earlier return to prison to complete the non-served part of the original sentence - and because there is no pre-sentence detention in relation to this offending, the principle of totality should play a significant part in my sentencing discretion.  I agree with that submission.

32I turn to your personal circumstances, Mr Mizzi. 

33Your date of birth is 7 June 1968, and you are thus 49 years of age, and you were 45 at the time of this offending.  Your criminal record contains matters dating back to 1987.  Your convictions relate to theft, burglary, causing serious injury both intentionally and recklessly, assault and drug possession.  You were dealt with by means of imprisonment, community based orders, fines and disqualification from driving.  I regard your conviction on 24 August 2007 for recklessly causing serious injury and false imprisonment as relevant to the exercise of my sentencing discretion.

34You were the middle of three siblings, while there were two older siblings from your father's first marriage.  One of whom, Odette, in effect became a mother to you.  There is no doubt that your childhood and your formative years were marred by significant disadvantage.  Your sister Christine was killed by a motor car when you were five and a half years of age.  Shortly after this, your parents separated, and your father became an absent presence, while your mother commenced a relationship with an extremely violent and abusive man.  Both your mother and your stepfather were alcoholics, and their relationship appears to have been one of a most toxic co-dependency, punctuated by the daily physical and verbal abuse of your mother.  You yourself were subjected to physical abuse by your father, and to other violations, including sexual abuse by neighbours. 

35It is clear to me, Mr Mizzi, that your parents quite simply failed to provide you with a loving and secure environment, which is the basic fundamental right of every child.  At times you were placed in children's homes, and then returned to your mother's apparent care.  You were, in short, exposed to things to which no child should be exposed.  At the age of thirteen and a half, you were made a ward of the state of Victoria, living for a while in a refuge.  You left school at the age of 14 years and nine months.  Not surprisingly, your failed parenting led to an impaired education during your important formative years. 

36You became a father for the first time at the age of 18.  At the age of 21, you received a sentence of imprisonment, which you served at Pentridge, for multiple offences of burglary.  Later in your 20s, you encountered more grief and loss, as both your sister Odette and her daughter died, either at their own hands (your sister) or at the hand of others (your niece).  Nonetheless, it seems to me that you were able and had the strength to begin to rebuild your life, and to show that you were not going to be defined as a victim.  You re-entered education at the age of 26 years of age, and you then qualified as a youth worker, and you worked in that capacity for a number of years, purchasing home which you yourself were able to fill with love.

37However, at the age of 32 you became addicted to amphetamine, as a result of which you lost custody of your son, Paris John, and eventually, tragically, you lost control of your life.  It is particularly poignant and affecting in my view that you should have been able to define yourself as something other than your baggage of your childhood, only then to have it all fall to pieces through the terrible scourge of your addiction.

38In relation to this offending, you were contacted by Ms Marinovic and asked to give assistance to the recovery of her property from Mr Hall's address. 

39I turn to the submissions of your counsel on your plea. 

40Your counsel, Mr Newton, submitted I should give due weight to your disadvantaged background.  I do take that into account, although given your age and your prior criminal history, the weight to be afforded to such a background is of necessity far, far less than if you were a young man with your first few prior court appearances.

41Mr Newton submitted that there should be substantial discount for the early plea of guilty, and that this plea represented great value, which should be reflected in the sentence.  Again, I give full credit for the plea of guilty.  Credit not only for the utilitarian benefit that such a plea represents, but also as recognition of the remorse that you show for this offending.

42Your counsel submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation could be described as "reasonable".  I accept, Mr Mizzi, that you have community supports in the shape of your partner, Ms Piccard.  I accept that you have not used illicit drugs whilst in custody, and I further accept that you have a desire to remain drug free.  So having regard to all of these matters, I do not shut the door on your rehabilitation, but regard the prospects for your rehabilitation with some caution.  Quite simply, your future, your life and the relationships that you have with those whom you love depend entirely upon whether or not you can remain drug-free.  That choice can be made only by you, quite simply, and by no one else.  And until you make that decision, one can only be cautious as to your prospects for rehabilitation.  Everything depends upon you staying drug-free.

43Finally, your counsel relied upon the not insubstantial delay as being a matter which might mitigate your sentence.  Your counsel conceded realistically that the only appropriate sentence is an immediate significant term of imprisonment, with the setting of a non-parole period. 

44Lana Marinovic, your date of birth is 27 January 1980, and you are thus now 37 years of age, and you were 34 years old at the time of this offending.  Your criminal record begins in 1997, when you were 17 years old.  The matters contained include theft, burglary, assault, causing injury, handling stolen goods and damage to property.  You were initially dealt with by way of youth detention, and later imprisonment, suspended sentences, intensive corrections orders, community corrections orders, and fines.

45There was tendered on the plea by your counsel, Mr Williams, a report dated August 2011, prepared by Dr Danny Sullivan, consultant psychiatrist as he then was, and reports from March 1999 and August 2006 prepared by Ian Joblin, forensic psychologist.  Although these reports were not current, the stories that those reports revealed of your life remain in my view consistent, constant, and cogent, that is, they contain important information to which I have had regard.

46Your childhood was marked by the presence of a violent and abusive father, who terrorised both you, your two siblings, and your mother.  Due to your parents' constant relocating, you attended various schools.  You were however an excellent student up until the age of 16, where you were the victim of a serious sexual assault.  It is in the aftermath of that assault that you turned to drugs. 

47You began to use heroin, and by the tender age of 17, you were an addict.  Over the years you have abused a variety of drugs, sadly all too familiar to the court.  Since that time, it seems that your life has been shaped by your addiction and the crimes that you have committed in order to feed that addiction.  You are currently prescribed methadone, 50 mL a day.  Most importantly, Dr Sullivan posited a direct connection between your diagnosis of complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and your developing severe drug dependence.  In layperson's terms, the event that occurred to when you were 16, 17 has never been dealt with, and you have turned to drugs in order to hide those feelings when there is a clear connection between the two.  I proceed on the basis that that diagnosis still applies to you, still has application.

48In 2006, your father hit his head and was in a coma three years before emerging.  I have no doubt that that experience further confused you and caused you to be greatly conflicted in your emotions.  I am told that you felt excluded from the financial settlement that your father received as a result of action taken against Ambulance Victoria.

49Your relationship with your mother is the one constant in your life, when at times everything else appears to unravel and fall through your fingers.  Your mother had purchased for you the television which you had left at Mr Hall's home, along with your other property, which represented all your worldly goods.  I accept readily that the television became a transitional object for you, that is to say it carried more value than the object itself, and as such its theft represented far more than the mere loss of the item itself.  Your involvement in this offending arose out of your concern for your property.  You sought the help of your co-accused to go with you to Mr Hall's property. 

50Submissions of your counsel Mr Williams were as follows.

51Firstly, in assessing the objective gravity of the offending, he relied upon the relative spontaneity of the offending.  The offending occurred over a matter of about six minutes.  He reminded me that this should not be regarded as an aggravated burglary by any other name, and that the agreement to assault arose as a result of an understanding formed at the house of Mr Hall itself.

52He submitted that you were not aware of the sword until you were in the house.  I have already indicated the finding that I make in relation to the weapon, i.e. that it was not brought by any of you to the premises.

53Mr Williams submitted that this assault arose at a highly-emotionally charged moment.  Whilst you pleaded guilty to recklessly causing serious injury, you were not directly involved in the assault, and he urged that you did not wield any weapon.  He submitted that your differing role enabled me to pass a lesser sentence than that upon your co-accused, without infringing the principle of parity.

54In short, he relied specifically upon:

(1) Your plea of guilty, which represented both significant utility and was a genuine reflection of remorse.  I accept that submission.

(2) The delay of three years, the responsibility for which could not be laid at your door. 

(3) The fact your addiction, which is a background to this offending, is related to the events that occurred in your adolescence, and from which you have obviously never been able to recover.

(4) That you are not without prospects for rehabilitation.  In this regard,
Mr Williams submitted that on analysis of your prior criminal history, you had never had the benefit of an extended period of supervision.  You had been socially vulnerable and isolated throughout your adult life.  This vulnerability manifests itself in the co-dependent and abusive relationships that you have formed throughout your life.  You had never had experience of the benefit and of the joy of a mutually-respectful relationship, apart from the relationship that you had with your mother.

55He also urged me to accept that your prospects depend on your willingness to engage, if given the opportunity, so as to address in a therapeutic context the underlying causes for your addiction; in other words, what leads you to use drugs.  And of course, the addiction is so closely linked to your offending.  You want to be drug-free, I was told.

56It seems that your methadone prescription appears to be working, and
Mr Williams submitted that my sentence presented an opportunity for you to break the cycle.  Again, that is a choice that only you can make,
Ms Marinovic, and the future is set out for you unless you do make that choice and put it into action.

57Ms Piggott, the learned prosecutor, in her succinct and helpful submissions in reply, identified the factors going to the objective gravity of the offending as follows.

(1) That Mr Hall was attacked in his own home, he was attacked whilst asleep in his own bed, attacked whilst alone in his home in a quiet suburban neighbourhood;

(2) That the attack occurred in the early hours of the morning;

(3) That there were three assailants;

(4) The injuries had potentially lasting effects; and

(5) The more general impact upon Mr Hall, the victim, as revealed in his Victim Impact Statement.

58Principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation she urged as primary sentencing considerations in this case.

59Mr Koers, Mr Mizzi, Ms Marinovic, in sentencing you I must have regard to a range of different factors.  I must give effect to principles of both general deterrence and specific deterrence.  I must deter others from behaving like you did on this occasion, and I must deter all three of you from repeating such behaviour.  I must express the community's denunciation of your conduct, and I should promote, if at all possible, your rehabilitation.  I take into account the effect that your crime has had upon your victim, and I must have regard to current sentencing practices, as determined and described by the Court of Appeal, for the kind of offence that you have committed and the maximum penalties.  In short, I have a balancing exercise to perform.  I must try to balance your personal circumstances with the circumstances of your offending.

60Clearly in respect of all of you, the principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation are primary sentencing considerations in this case, tempered by the prospects of rehabilitation, to the principle of parity, and in your case, Mr Koers, to the principle of totality.

61I have taken into account, for the avoidance of doubt, all the mitigating factors to which I have referred above, and I give as full effect to them as I can.  As is conceded, in effect, by all of your counsel, the only possible disposition is a significant term of imprisonment.

62I will deal first of all with you, Mr Mizzi. 

63Paris Shane Mizzi, on the charge of recklessly causing serious injury, I sentence you to a term of four years' imprisonment; on the charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, one month imprisonment to be served concurrently; on the charge of contravening condition of bail, one month imprisonment to be served concurrently.  I fix a non-parole period of two years and nine months. 

64Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, you would have been sentenced to a term of five years with a non-parole period of three years and nine months.

65Pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you have served 100 days of the sentence that I have imposed upon you, and I direct that this be recorded in the records of the court.

66Garry Andrew Koers, on the charge of recklessly causing serious injury, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment three years and nine months. Pursuant to s.14(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I set a new non-parole period of two years and one month.

67Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, you would have been sentenced to a term of five years, with a new non-parole period of three years and one month.

68Lana Marinovic, on the charge of recklessly causing serious injury, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of three years.  I fix a non-parole period in your case of 18 months. 

69Pursuant to s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, you would have been sentenced to a term of four years with a non-parole period of two years and nine months.

70Pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you have served 135 days of the sentence that I have imposed upon you, and I direct that this be recorded in the records of the court.

‑ ‑ ‑