Director of Public Prosecutions v Kusen
[2017] VCC 1971
•20 December 2017
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR 17-00974
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BROCK KUSEN |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LACAVA |
| WHERE HELD: | Wangaratta |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 13 December 2017 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 20 December 2017 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Kusen |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2017] VCC 1971 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: Dangerous Driving Causing Death
Sentence: 4 Year Community Corrections Order---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr A. Moore | |
| For the Accused | Ms D. Price |
HIS HONOUR:
1Brock Kusen, you have been convicted after a trial of the offence of dangerous driving which caused the death of Jessica McLennan. The trial was relatively short, lasting as it did approximately one week, which included nearly two days of jury deliberations. The guilty verdict was a majority verdict of eleven of the jurors.
2It is necessary at the outset to set out some relevant principles of law that need to be understood and applied in sentencing you. This is an unusual, and in my view exceptional case, which gives rise to a difficult sentencing task. The difficulty arises from the fact that in the circumstances, your counsel seeks a disposition in the form of a community corrections order or non-custodial disposition, in circumstances where you pleaded not guilty and have been convicted after a trial.
3The maximum sentence for this offence is presently ten years' imprisonment. It was increased to that maximum in 2008. Prior to the increase in sentence the maximum sentence was five years' imprisonment. The seriousness of offending such as this can thus be seen from the fact that Parliament saw fit to double the maximum sentence in 2008.
4This type of offence where there is no mens rea, or no intention to kill, or injure, or otherwise cause harm, but which involves but a moment's lack of concentration has troubled sentencing courts for some time. That is because that most precious of all things, namely human life itself, is lost.
5The NSW Court of Appeal in R v. Whyte [2002] 55 NSWLR 252 published an amendment to its earlier guideline judgment in R v. Jurisic [1998] 45 NSWLR 209. Speigelman CJ again repeated what he had said in Jurisic at p284:
"A non-custodial sentence for an offence against s.52A should be exceptional and almost invariably confined to cases involving momentary inattention or mis-judgment".
6In this State, the Victorian Court of Appeal, as recently as last year said in DPP v Borg [2016] VSCA 53 at paragraph [74], a case where the DPP appealed against a sentence where the offender had pleaded guilty to two charges of dangerous driving causing death and two charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury:
"At first blush, it is difficult to see how any sentence other than one of immediate imprisonment could possibly meet the needs of general deterrence, adequate punishment, and denunciation, in respect of conduct as objectively grave as the conduct you have engaged in where an innocent person driving herself to work, lost her life because of what you did."
7In sentencing for this offence, the Court of Appeal has emphasized that there is a premium on human life and general deterrence is an important factor. For that reason, youth was to be given less weight as a subjective factor than in other types of cases and a non-custodial sentence for this kind of offence is exceptional. See: R v Neethling [2009] VR 466 and the judgment of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in R v Jurisic (supra). In this case, you fall to be sentenced as a young offender. You were aged 19 at the commission of the offence and you will turn 21 years of age on the 18th March next year.
8In R v Oates [2007] VSCA 59 the Court of Appeal emphasised that general deterrence must be given considerable weight in sentencing an offender for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury. It added that a person who kills or injures another while driving dangerously is likely to receive a significant term of imprisonment. The court in Oates qualified that statement of principle by noting that any sentence which is imposed must take account of variations in the moral culpability of the person responsible and that a custodial sentence will usually be appropriate for this offence, except where the offender's level of moral culpability is low.
9Whilst you cannot be punished for exercising your right to plead not guilty, you cannot expect to receive the benefit of a reduction in sentence which would normally follow, had you pleaded guilty to the charge.
10The Court of Appeal in Phillips v The Queen [2012] 222 A Crim R 149 at 159-160 set out ten factors which may influence the mitigatory effect of a plea of guilty. They include an acceptance of responsibility for the offending and that the plea of guilty evidences remorse.
11Because you have pleaded not guilty and you have been convicted after a trial, the prosecution argues that you should now receive a sentence that involves immediate custody, either in an adult prison, or in a Youth Justice Centre, or a combination of jail in an adult prison, followed by a period on a community corrections order.
12Ms Price who appeared as counsel on your behalf throughout the trial and on the plea submits that I should make a community corrections order for a lengthy period of time with appropriate conditions relating to ensuring your rehabilitation and punitive conditions to ensure that you are appropriately punished.
13The Court of Appeal in this State has affirmed the suitability of making a community corrections order in a range of cases as a disposition capable of simultaneously promoting the competing interests of an offender and the community. Although Ms Price did not specifically refer to these cases in submissions, I understood her to be referring to the Court of Appeal decision in Bolton, later confirmed in DPP v Borg [2016] VSCA 53 at [110].
14In Bolton the Court of Appeal said, inter alia at paragraph 131:
"A CCO may be suitable, even in cases of relatively serious offences which might previously have attracted a medium term of imprisonment (such as, for example, aggravated burglary, intentionally causing serious injury, some forms of sexual offences involving minors, some kinds of rape and some categories of homicide). The sentencing judge may find that, in view of the objective gravity of the conduct and the personal circumstances of the offender, a properly-conditioned CCO of lengthy duration is capable of satisfying the requirements of proportionality, parsimony and just punishment, while affording the best prospects for rehabilitation."
15In Borg the Court of Appeal examined in detail the nature and effect of a community corrections order. It said, inter alia, at paragraph [107]:
"Because of the combined punitive and rehabilitative effect of a CCO, the court said, sentencing courts should ‘re-examine the conventional wisdom about the types of offending which ordinarily attract a term of imprisonment’".
16Also in Borg, the Court of Appeal referred to what it had said in McGrath v The Queen [2015] VSCA 176 at paragraphs [30] to [32]:
"Nothing said in Bolton altered the principle of parsimony, which has always been a fundamental sentencing principle under the Sentencing Act 1991 (the Act.)
A sentencing judge has always been obliged to impose the least severe sentence necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing. That obligation is enshrined in s.5(3) and (4) of the Act, which oblige the court not to impose a sentence of confinement unless it considers that 'the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed' cannot be achieved by a sentence that does not involve confinement. Those provisions, which are of long standing, were recently supplemented by s 5(4C), which requires a court not to impose a sentence of confinement unless it considers that the relevant sentencing purposes cannot be achieved by a CCO with conditions attached.
The judge's obligation is, as it has always been, to give adequate consideration to whether a sentencing option, other than a substantial immediate custodial term of imprisonment, will be appropriate. The option of a CCO must be amongst the alternative dispositions to be considered. In Bolton, the court pointed out that in an appropriate case, a CCO can achieve all of the purposes of sentencing and can do so in cases which might previously have been thought to require a sentence of imprisonment.
Plainly enough, the availability of the option of a CCO does not mean that the imposition of a custodial sentence is presumptively erroneous."
17The court in McGrath endorsed what was said in Hutchinson v The Queen [2015] VSCA 115, where Priest JA (with the concurrence of Ashley JA) said at paragraph [53]:
"Acknowledging that a CCO might be appropriate 'even in cases of relatively serious offences which might previously have attracted a medium term of imprisonment', it should not be thought that Bolton offers a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card in situations where a sentence of imprisonment is necessary in a given case to satisfy the various purposes for which a sentence may be imposed. One of the purposes for which a sentence may be imposed is, of course, 'to punish the offender to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances.' There will be cases, indeed, many cases, where, having regard to the seriousness of the offending, a CCO will be insufficiently punitive to satisfy the need to punish the offender in a manner which, in all the circumstances, is just."
18These are general principles that need to be properly applied in arriving at the correct sentencing disposition of you. The sentence imposed, of course, depends upon all of the circumstances of the case. I now turn to the circumstances of your offending.
19The factual matrix is largely uncontested.
20On the evening of the 31st May 2016 you commenced a night shift at Alpine MDF in Wangaratta at 10pm. You finished your night shift shortly after 6 am the following morning, 1 June 2016 and shortly thereafter set off for your home in Rutherglen. You were driving a dark green 1999 BMW 318i owned by your father. You were the holder of a probationary licence.
21A fellow employee at Alpine MDF, Peter Fuller, gave uncontested evidence of your vehicle following his vehicle to the Hume Freeway where you both travelled North. You exited at the Springhurst/Rutherglen turnoff and he proceeded straight ahead. He had observed you periodically in his rear view mirror up until the time you parted ways.
22Fuller gave evidence that although he knew of you he did not know you. He said he observed you near the clock-off area. He said you seemed alert and you were conversing with other workers. He did not notice anything unusual about you. (T23) He gave evidence to the effect there was nothing wrong with the way you were driving your vehicle up until the time that he left you. (T27) At T31 he gave this evidence whilst under cross examination:
"Now in that journey between Alpine MDF and when you get to the highway, you're looking in your rear view mirror from time to time?---Yes.
He's on the right side of the road, as in the correct side of the road?---Yes.
He's maintaining an appropriate speed?---Yes.
He's travelling straight in the lane?---Yes.
He's not swerving, doing anything silly?---No.
He's driving safely?---Driving safely.
Once you get to the highway as well, he's driving in the correct side of the road?
---Yes.At an appropriate and safe speed?---Yes."
23The jury were taken on a view of the scene of the collision. They were taken in a bus which also took them up the Hume freeway and the bus exited where you had on the morning of the collision. In order to get onto the Rutherglen/Springhurst Rd it is necessary for the driver to negotiate a roundabout and a right-hand turn before the road straightens out. You would have had to negotiate those turns on the morning of the offence.
24At the same time that you were travelling North along the Springhurst/Rutherglen Rd, two other vehicles were also travelling along the same road, but in the opposite direction towards your on-coming vehicle. The occupants of each of those vehicles were both nurses travelling towards Wangaratta to commence a day shift at 7 am at the Wangaratta Hospital.
25The first car, a Falcon, was being driven by Bronwyn Holloway. A short distance behind her was a Datsun sports car being driven by the deceased Jessica McLennan. At the time, the weather was fine and the road was dry. Although still dark, visibility was good. Each of the vehicles had head lights operating.
26The road in question, relevantly, is a long straight stretch of road. It is a two way divided carriageway with a broken white line down the middle. Presently the road has what are referred to as "rumble strips" down the middle line, but they were not present at the time of this offence.
27Ms Holloway gave evidence that she observed the headlights of your vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. She said when she first saw your headlights the cars were separated by two or three kilometres. She then gave this evidence at T36:
"All right. As you and the car got closer to each other, did you notice anything unusual about the movement of that vehicle? This is the approaching car?
---As it was coming closer, I could see that it was drifting.When you say drifting, what do you mean by that?---Well it wasn't - it was a constant move across into my side of the road.
It was or it wasn't?---It was, sorry. It was a gradual, I guess is what you could call it, a gradual movement across."
28At T37 she gave this evidence:
"Did you stay in the same spot?---No, I moved over.
Why was that?---Because his wheel was over the line.
Okay, so I want you to describe to the jury, as best you can recall now, what happened just before the impact and just afterwards?---As we were approaching each other, I could see that the front tyre of his car was over - just over the line, the white line. And I wasn't sure why, so I moved to the left.
When you say the front tyre, you mean the driver's side tyre?---Yeah.
And you moved to the left - - - ?---M'mm.
- - - because you thought he was going to hit you?---Well, I just wasn't sure what was going to happen at that point, so I moved to the left.
And what happened?---And then he hit me. So I gradually thought he may have gone past, but he hit the back of my car on my driver's side."
29Ms Holloway lost full control of her vehicle which came to a stop some distance away in a paddock on the right-hand or Western side of the road.
30Again, Ms Holloway’s evidence was not in contention.
31Your vehicle collided with Ms Holloway's vehicle in a glancing fashion. The point of impact was on your incorrect side of the roadway. Your vehicle continued to travel North on the incorrect side of the road, where it collided with the vehicle being driven by Ms McLennan. An accident re-constructionist, Sergeant Hay from the Major Collision Investigation Unit of Victoria Police travelled to the scene. He produced a diagram depicting the positions of the vehicles, the two points of impact and photographs of the scene. All of that was common ground.
32There is no suggestion you were speeding. It is also common ground that all vehicles were travelling at or just below the speed limit of 100 kph.
33There is also no suggestion your driving was adversely affected by drugs or alcohol. T159
34Further, a check of your mobile phone present in the car shows that it was not being used at the time of or shortly prior to the collision and there is no positive evidence that your phone was used in any other way. (See the evidence of Detective Sergeant Kilpatrick the informant at T153.)
35Detective Sergeant Kilpatrick gave evidence, which was also uncontested, that he made inquiries about your movements and sleep patterns in the days leading up to the collision. That went into evidence as Exhibit C. It showed that you had adequate sleep.
36Sergeant Kilpatrick gave evidence that he had taken a statement from a paramedic who attended the emergency scene. That person was Lisa Edmonds. In her statement she said that she spoke with you at the scene and amongst other things, she asked you what had happened. You told her either "I don't know" or "I can't remember."
37In the collision you suffered injuries. In particular you suffered a broken jaw and teeth. You were taken from the scene of the collision by ambulance to the Wangaratta Hospital. The discharge summary from that hospital which went into evidence on the plea records that you sustained "head strike, loss of consciousness and retrograde amnesia."
38I am satisfied that you have no recollection of the collision, or of your driving in the lead up to it. You did not give evidence or call other evidence and there was no record of interview led in evidence by the prosecution.
39As I say, all of this evidence was uncontested. The defence response to the prosecution opening put in issue whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt whether your driving on the incorrect side of the road was caused by a voluntary act on your part. Based principally on the evidence of Ms Holloway of observing your vehicle drifting onto the wrong side of the road, your counsel submitted to the jury that it could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution had disproved that you may have driven onto the incorrect side of the roadway, because you may have suffered from a micro sleep. This was the issue that took up most of the time of the trial. By its verdict, the jury must be taken to have rejected this argument and to have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you steered your car onto the wrong side of the road as a result of a voluntary act.
40I agree with the decision of the jury. There was simply too much evidence that you were alert and awake and driving properly in the lead up to the collision for it to have found otherwise.
41However, in a case where you have no recollection of the collision, having lost consciousness and you suffer from retrograde amnesia, in my judgment, you were entitled to put the prosecution to its proof on that issue. Had your defence been put on the basis of a moment's inadvertence, or inattention, instead of on the issue that the prosecution could not disprove the occurrence of a micro sleep, your defence may have succeeded. In my view, having regard to the evidence, the defence based around a micro sleep was a long bow and the jury was entitled to see it that way and find as it obviously did.
42From all of this evidence, for the purposes of sentencing, it is necessary to form a view as to your moral culpability for this collision. You have never denied that your driving on the wrong side of the road caused the collision. You put in issue that your driving was not dangerous in the circumstances because the prosecution could not disprove that the collision was caused by an involuntary act on your part.
43The jury must have been satisfied on the evidence:
·That you were driving at or below the speed limit;
·On the incorrect side of the road;
·That your vehicle first struck Ms Holloway's vehicle a glancing blow before colliding with Ms McLennan's vehicle head on also on the incorrect side of the roadway;
·That as a result of brief inattention by you for whatever reason you allowed your vehicle to first drift onto the wrong side of the roadway before the collision;
·That up until the time that you allowed your vehicle to drive onto the incorrect side of the road, there was nothing observed of your driving that suggests you were driving illegally of improperly;
·That at the time of the collision you were not alcohol or drug affected and that you were not using a mobile phone which may have otherwise distracted you.
44I conclude that this offence occurred because of momentary or brief inattention by you in the driving of your vehicle, which caused it to drift onto the incorrect side of the roadway and into the path of the vehicles being driven by Ms Hollaway and Ms McLennan. In my judgment and leaving to one side for the moment the awful consequences of your offending, your moral culpability for this collision is low. Your offending falls into the lower range of offences of this kind and I understood the learned prosecutor not to disagree. Your offending lacks the aggravating features often found in offending of this kind. In my judgment, there is less need for any sentence imposed upon you in the circumstances of this exceptional case to reflect application of the principle of general deterrence.
45The Sentencing Act 1991 requires that in passing sentence I must take into account the impact of your offending on any victim. On the plea, I received a number of victim impact statements. Vicki McLennan, the mother of the deceased, made a moving statement, which she bravely read to the court (Exhibit A), as did the deceased's father Wayne McLennan (Exhibit B) and Kristy McLennan, the deceased’s sister (Exhibit C). The deceased's partner Jared Hatton made a statement, which was read to the court (Exhibit D) and his parents Julie and Darren Hatton each made statements (Exhibits E & F respectively) which they each bravely read to the court, as well as other close friends Cassandra Oats (Exhibit J), Jennifer Smith (Exhibit G)and Tenniell Evans (Exhibit H). I also received into evidence a USB drive containing a compilation of photographs of Jessica McLennan interacting at various stages of her life with family, friends and loved ones. This was prepared as tribute to her and shown at her funeral.
46I found all of this evidence very moving. I have re-read these documents in my chambers and viewed the USB drive compilation of photographs whilst giving consideration to these matters. What comes through very clearly is that by your dangerous driving you caused the death of a beautiful young woman who was adored by all who were privileged to have made her acquaintance. As her partner said, "she was one of a kind." You will have to live with the consequences of your actions for the rest of your life.
47The other obvious thing that comes through from this evidence is the extreme sense of grief and devastation caused to Jessica McLennan's immediate family, loved ones and friends. The sense of loss, the sense of frustration and the sense of bewilderment I think will last for a long time. All of this comes through from the victim impact statements. Unfortunately, nothing that I can do in this court can ameliorate these feelings, but I do take the victim impact statements into account in arriving at an appropriate sentence.
48I turn to some matters relating to you.
49Firstly, remorse. The victim impact statements contain material suggesting you have not shown remorse. If that be the case, I think it may have arisen out of confusion and the fact that the question of your offending was before the courts. I was told and accept that you were told by the police that you must not contact the family of Ms McLennan. I accept that to be the fact. A letter from your parents that I received into evidence indicates that you have struggled since the collision. Because you were injured and suffered memory loss, you have struggled with questions as to why you caused the collision, a question that can never be answered. Your parents have stated that you wanted to reach out to Ms McLennan's family to apologise for what you did, only to be told that you could not.
50I received into evidence on the plea a short note from you addressed to me and the family and friends of Ms McLennan: It says relevantly:
"For the last 18 months I and my family haven't been able to express sadness for the collision. I am so sorry that Jessica died and for the hurt caused to Bronwyn their families and friends. I know that if I could switch place to prevent what has happened I would. I hope that you can accept this apology that was prolonged due to the circumstances, but I understand if you cannot accept this apology. I will always be sincerely sorry for what has happened and I will always feel this way."
51I also received into evidence a report from Paul Bizzotto, a psychologist with whom you have had a number of sessions since the offence (Exhibit 3). In his report Mr Bizzotto said, amongst other things:
"Brock maintains that he does not recall the circumstances that led to the collision in question and in this regard he appears to be genuine in making this statement. He has also been genuine in expressing his remorse as to the consequences of his actions. From all accounts, Brock was not sleep deprived, was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, not speeding and not using his phone when the collision occurred, which makes it difficult to identify what could have been done to prevent the collision. Brock reports being advised by police to not interact with the aggrieved family of the victim Jess McLennan and has by all accounts followed this advice, including limiting his presence in his local town of Rutherglen since the collision. Brock reported experiencing symptoms of anxiety and depression, including sleep disturbance and irritability, the monthly anniversary of the collision being particularly difficult for brock to cope with."
52Mr Bizzotto diagnosed you as suffering from an adjustment disorder and gave you cognitive behaviour therapy.
53I was told and accept that about three months after the collision, with your parents you decided to plant a rose in memory of Jessica McLennan in the garden of the family home at Rutherglen and this was done.
54In my judgment, you are genuinely remorseful for your actions and the devastating consequences it has had for all concerned. A plea of guilty to the charge would have reinforced your genuine remorse, but in my judgment the issue of voluntariness, as it was run before the jury in the trial, is not a defence that I should view as being in any way inconsistent with you being remorseful. That is especially so in light of the fact that you suffered loss of consciousness and retrograde amnesia.
55You were born and raised in Rutherglen and you remain there living with your parents, who were in court throughout the trial to support you. The family and relatives and friends of Jessica McLennan also live in Rutherglen, which is not a large town. I accept it has not been easy for you because of this since the collision. I was told and accept you have been the subject of critical comments on social media, which have drawn attention to you trying to go about your life. For example, you played two games of football after the collision and towards the end of the 2016 season and I was told you played six out of the 18 possible games in the 2017 season.
56This trial has attracted intense media scrutiny, possibly because of the fact you and Jessica McLennan both lived in Rutherglen. This has also not made it easy for you and throughout the trial you have confronted the family and friends of Jessica McLennan in large numbers in this court. That cannot have been easy, either for you, or for them. Everyone is entitled to come to these proceedings in an open court. Despite the obvious difficulty for you, in my observations you have conducted yourself with composure and dignity throughout this trial and plea and that is to your credit.
57You are a young offender, being not yet 21 years of age. The law in this State has for many years provided that in sentencing a young offender the primary sentencing consideration is rehabilitation. This is in recognition that sometimes young people do stupid things. But the law also provides a balance, relevantly where the consequences of the actions of young offenders are very serious, as here, the primary sentencing consideration of rehabilitation may give way to general deterrence and this is touched upon in the extracts from some of the decisions of the Court of Appeal I earlier referred to.
58You have a younger brother and I was told and accept that you come from a hard-working and law abiding family. You have no prior or subsequent convictions and it has not even been alleged that you had incurred a traffic infringement.
59You attended school in Rutherglen and completed Year 12 in 2015. 2016 was meant to be a gap year for you to enable you to work and save money, perhaps for some travel but also to pay for a tertiary education in the field of personal training and nutrition. Those plans are on hold pending conclusion of these matters in the court. You play cricket and football and have interest in music.
60I admitted into evidence a number of references from family and friends and people who have worked with you. You are variously described as hard working, sensible, reliable and with an outgoing sense of humour. Each one refers to your deep feeling of remorse.
61I have concluded from all of the evidence that your prospects for a complete rehabilitation are excellent and I should not do anything to impede that.
62In my judgment, having regard to the circumstances of this collision and your low moral culpability for it, there is less need for the sentence I imposed upon you to reflect application of general deterrence. In my judgment, because of your genuine remorse, the fact you are a young offender and your character and general antecedents and your excellent prospects for rehabilitation, the imposition of a community corrections order with conviction and with appropriate conditions will be a sentence which best achieves all the purposes of sentencing in this exceptional case.
63A punitive aspect of the order will be a condition for a large amount of unpaid community work. To this end I had you assessed as to suitability for making of such an order. The assessment has come back very positive and you have been assessed as being at low risk of re-offending. The assessor has not recommended you be supervised and only that I impose a condition for unpaid community work. I am, however, going to ensure that you are monitored periodically by me and there will be a condition for Judicial Monitoring every six months, at which time I will receive a report about your progress and if you fail to comply with the order in any way I will re-sentence you.
64On the charge of dangerous driving causing death I make a community corrections order with conviction for a period of four (4) years commencing this day. There will be conditions of the order that you undertake 400 hours unpaid community work and that you undergo Judicial Monitoring by me every six months.
65Section 89(4) of the Sentencing Act requires that I must cancel your licence held by you and disqualify you from obtaining or holding a licence for a minimum period of 18 months. I have decided that your licence should be cancelled and you are disqualified from holding a licence for two years and I will hear submissions as to the date this cancellation and disqualification should operate from.
66MR MOORE: From today, Your Honour.
67HIS HONOUR: Very well. Your licence is cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining a driving licence for a period of two years from this day. Are there any questions arising out of that?
68MR MOORE: No.
69MS PRICE: No Your Honour.
70HIS HONOUR: Could you bring Mr Kusen out of the dock please and into the court to sit behind Ms Price? Now Mr Kusen, you understand that the effect of the community corrections order?
71OFFENDER: Yes Your Honour.
72HIS HONOUR: You must not, in the period of the next four years, commit any offence, which is punishable by a term of imprisonment. If you do so, you will be brought back before me and resentenced, do you understand that?
73OFFENDER: Yes Your Honour.
74HIS HONOUR: Now, you must comply with all of the conditions of the order in every way. If you do not, you will be brought back and dealt with by me, do you understand that?
75OFFENDER: Yes Your Honour.
76HIS HONOUR: I have also provided that you will be monitored by me every six months, you understand?
77OFFENDER: Yes Your Honour.
78HIS HONOUR: Now, that will probably be done by video link from this court. I'll be in Melbourne, but I will receive a report as to your progress and compliance with the order from Corrections. If you step out of line in any way, you will be dealt with by me, do you understand?
79OFFENDER: Yes Your Honour.
80HIS HONOUR: Now, there is provision that you undertake 400 hours of unpaid community work over the period of the next four years. You must do that. If you do not do that, you will dealt with by me, do you understand that?
81OFFENDER: Yes Your Honour.
82HIS HONOUR: Now, you're required to agree to enter into the community corrections order by signing the documentation, which has been provided to Ms Price. Explain that to your client please, Ms Price?
83MS PRICE: Yes. Yes.
84HIS HONOUR: Now, the other thing is that you will have to report to Corrections, I think, within 48 hours?
85MR MOORE: Yes Your Honour.
86HIS HONOUR: You'll have to report to Corrections in Wangaratta within 48 hours. It would probably be best to do that today, given that Christmas is upon us, do you understand?
87OFFENDER: Yes Your Honour.
88HIS HONOUR: Very well. Very well, on the rising of the court, you're free to leave.
89MS PRICE: May it please the court.
‑ ‑ ‑
4
0