Director of Public Prosecutions v Lang

[2020] VCC 950

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-19-01810
CR 19-01808
CR-19-01811

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MATTHEW LANG
STEVEN ROSSITER
LUKE SYDES

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMALLWOOD
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 June 2020, 3 June 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 June 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Lang & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 950

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M. Fisher	Office of Public Prosecutions
For Accused Lang	Mr L. Richter	Stephen Peterson Lawyers
For Accused Rossiter	Mr D. Dann QC	Law Offices of Ellinghaus & Lindner
For Accused Sydes	Mr B. Newton	James Dowsley & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

1Luke Ryan Sydes, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated home invasion and one charge of intentionally causing injury.  Those crimes carry maximum penalties of 25 years and 10 years respectively.  In your particular situation there is effectively a mandatory minimum of three years on the aggravated home invasion charge, and nobody has been heard to argue that there could be anything other than a lack of circumstances which would justify me not imposing that, at least as a minimum term.

2You are now 41 years of age.  You pleaded guilty at a relatively early opportunity and you must get the utilitarian benefit of that.  You have indicated, subsequent to your plea of guilty, a degree of remorse and I take that into account, as evidenced by the actual plea itself.  However, you had in 2013 been sentenced to a period of two years' imprisonment for similar offending and I have had the opportunity of reading the learned plea judge's ruling and reasons for sentence.  In that again you were doing very much what you claim to have done here, that is all the programs in gaol, expressed remorse, stated victim empathy and all sorts of other things.

3You were again sentenced by Her Honour Judge Douglas in November 2013 and given a further year for offending that was of a driving nature and had occurred much earlier, and again the same sentiments were expressed by Her Honour in her sentencing remarks.  So you do have a significant criminal history and, unfortunately, you have been gaoled before for doing the very same thing that has occurred here.

4Insofar as - sorry, gentlemen - you, Mr Lang and Mr Rossiter are concerned, you, Mr Rossiter, as I understand it, were 46 years of age at the time of the offending.  You also pleaded guilty at a reasonably early opportunity.  I accept that you do have appropriate remorse and you must get the utilitarian benefit of that plea of guilty.

5You, in your situation, do have a significant number of prior matters before courts but they have not been for violence effectively and are more of a driving type nature.  You have also pleaded to home invasion, which carries 25 years, and intentional injury, 10 years, and you, Mr Lang, have pleaded to the same.  You are not in the situation of aggravated home invasion and that distinction has to be clearly made.  You, Mr Lang, are 45 years of age.  Again, pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity.  You have expressed remorse and must get the utilitarian benefit of that plea of guilty.

6Each of you has now been in custody for a period of 622 days, which is a significant period of time.  Quite lengthy discussions took place during the course of the plea about the nature of the offending and the various roles that were involved for each of you.  It would be easier in one sense to sit down and write war and peace on the differentials between each and analyse it to a minute degree.  In these circumstances, all being represented by experienced counsel, I do not think that that is necessary.  I will simply give brief indications to what I see as the differences and what the actual roles were.  As I have indicated, you, Mr Sydes, were 39 years of age at the time of the offending.  You, Mr Rossiter, were 46 years old at the time, and you, Mr Lang, were 45.

7The primary victim in the matter is a Mr David Standeven, who lived in Morwell with his two sons.  He had a CCTV system set up at his home with a number of motion activated cameras, recording footage both inside and outside the house, which captured the offending.  The reason for that system being there is unknown to me.

8In any event, on the night of Sunday, 13 October 2018, he was at home with his two sons.  The three of you arrived in a white sedan and parked in a nearby street.  At around about 11.15 pm the three of you walked up to the victim's house and approached the front door.  You, Mr Sydes, were holding a long handled axe in your right hand.  The opening points out, and I take this very much into account, that the matter was resolved on the basis that you,
Mr Rossiter, and you, Mr Lang, were not aware that Mr Sydes was carrying a weapon prior to the three of you entering the house.  I make it clear at this point in time that I have now had the opportunity of watching the CCTV footage of what occurred that night on a number of occasions.  I am prepared in this situation, Mr Sydes, to sentence on the basis that the purpose of the weapon was to, initially at least, achieve entry.  Clearly upon entry it became used as a weapon of assault.

9The Crown have agreed that you, Mr Rossiter and Lang, are not to be sentenced on the basis of being aware of the weapon.  However, you had been in the car for about 45 minutes, walked all the way from where the car had been parked and I have watched the video.  So I treat that with a certain degree of scepticism but from the point of view of a sentencing judge I have to honour agreements and understandings that are made in these circumstances.  People might not understand the level of negotiation that has to take place, and accordingly I, as a judge, must, as best I can, honour that.  So, as I say, whilst I have got suspicions I have got to be very, very careful not to allow those suspicions to affect the sentence that I impose on either you, Mr Rossiter, or you, Mr Lang.

10You, Mr Rossiter and Mr Lang, stepped up to the victim's door and Mr Sydes stood behind you.  Mr Rossiter, you knocked on the door twice.  There was no movement. You, Mr Lang, then pointed out the CCTV camera filming the front porch, and it was knocked out of the way.  Upon hearing noises and observing the three of you on CCTV, Mr Standeven got up and walked through the kitchen towards the front door.  The door burst open, breaking the deadbolt from the architrave and the three of you then entered.

11Upon entering the house you, Mr Rossiter, shoved and grappled with him and you, Mr Rossiter and Sydes, pushed him in his neck and face back against a wall.  He retreated into the kitchen, towards the laundry.  You, Mr Sydes, then followed him into a corner and attempted to punch him in the face with your left hand.  He cowered in the corner.  You punched him to the head, also holding the axe by the block in your right hand.

12You, Mr Sydes and Mr Lang, then grabbed him around the top of his shoulder and head, shoved him onto the ground in the kitchen area and he was pushed down by his head. You, Mr Lang, were holding him on his arm and shoulder.  You, Mr Rossiter, were standing over the victim as he was being held down.  While he was being held down you, Mr Sydes, slammed his head down on the floor and then struck him to the back of the head with the top part of the axe.  He could feel blood dripping down the back of his head and his left hear.  That gives rise to a charge of intentionally cause injury.  As already indicated, there is sufficient there for intentional injury without the use of the axe.  I would be uncertain as to what effect, if any, that axe had upon him, and whilst you,
Mr Sydes, are to be sentenced for the use of a very violent and very frightening weapon, you, Mr Rossiter and Lang, are not to be.

13There were children present, which aggravates the situation, in my view.  The victim's oldest son, Blake, was hiding in his bedroom and he called 000.  The younger son, Lincoln, hid in his bedroom throughout the attack.  The CCTV footage clearly shows all this and again, anyone who has a genuine interest can watch that CCTV footage and you, Mr Rossiter, walk over to the victim and appear to kick him in the shoulder. You stood over him alongside Mr Sydes.

14You, Mr Sydes, demanded that the victim hold his fingers out and you forcibly held out his hand and struck the axe against the floor just centimetres from the victim's fingers.  He was terrified that you were going to chop his fingers off and you said, 'Keep your fingers on the floor or we'll be going for a drive'.  He thought if he did not leave his fingers on the floor he would be killed.  You then struck the axe down on the floor near him multiple times.  Having viewed that activity taking place, as I said a number of times now on the CCTV, it was clearly a very terrifying experience.  He says he was told to pay up, he asked who he owed the money to and was told to have a think about the owner of the house.  He said he did not owe anybody any money.

15While that was happening you, Mr Lang, walked to the bedroom where the older boy was hiding.  You opened the door and walked in.  He was asked where the hard drive was for the CCTV system.  You were shown that and you ripped the cables out and picked up the hard drive.  Police at that stage arrived and you three said to each other, 'The cops are here', and had to go.  You, Mr Lang, attempted to hide the CCTV hard drive in a drawer in the kitchen and police demanded that you all came outside.

16As I indicated during the course of the plea, it is my view that whatever the motives may have been for going there, and I have got grave doubts about all that, this offending was owned by you, Mr Sydes.  It is clear from when you went in there that he was a man being at least harassed by three large men and put into a terrifying situation.  The circumstances would have been bad enough but the use of the axe and the way in which you did is terrifying indeed.

17I accept that you knew the victim and you knew something about his family circumstances.  You, Mr Rossiter, apparently had had contact with him but he says some 20 years earlier, and you, Mr Lang, were aware of him.  It is said that this was all about having a debt repaid.  Again, as I have said, I have got grave doubts about all that but it is clear from what Mr Lang, so far as he is concerned, said to the police, that he believed that it was you, Mr Sydes, who had the interest in the victim and he pretty much went along.  However, by comparison when one looks at the CCTV you, Mr Lang, are very careful indeed to try and avoid leaving fingerprints anywhere in the house.

18So clearly it is properly brought as a home invasion.  It is quite clear that each of you understood at the moment you went through that door that this man was to be assaulted.  It seems clear to me that, Mr Sydes, you were by that point in time fully aware of how badly he was to be assaulted, though I accept that you, Mr Rossiter, and you, Mr Lang, probably were not.

19You, Mr Sydes would probably have known that there were children present.  You, Mr Lang, became aware that there were children present, or at least to one child present.  Having watched it, and again this was pointed out to me by your counsel and I accept this, when the axe was being used it appears that you, Mr Lang, endeavoured to get Mr Sydes to resist and you appear to be struck or at least a blow is thrown at you for your troubles by Mr Sydes.  Again, there is no sound to any of this CCTV but I think that is a fairly accurate description of what takes place.

20Insofar as roles are concerned I think yours, Mr Sydes, is far greater than that of the other two and it would appear on the face of it at least that you had the motive and again, for about the third time, you clearly took total ownership of this once the three of you were inside.

21Various searches were carried out.  I do not think I need to go into the detail of all that.  When you were interviewed by police I think a number of lies were told.  That does not matter in the overall set of circumstances that exist here.  It is clear to me from the material that has been provided on your behalf in particular you, Mr Lang, and you, Mr Rossiter, that subsequent to this you have become fully aware of the consequences and fully aware of the terror that you had caused.

22I have before me a victim impact statement, parts of which are a bit hard to make sense of, where the victim himself says he does not feel safe at all.  He is sus about everybody and has trouble sleeping.  He went to Western Australia for a while.  Apparently since this night he had been unable to see his children.  I cannot quite work out why that is but, in any event, I take that into account, and what one would expect from a person who has been put through an ordeal such as this though, as I say, there are aspects of it which I find a little bit confusing, to say the least.

23I do not think I need to go into great detail about issues of parity.  I think it is common ground that you, Mr Sydes, are in a different situation by some degree to the others.  You have been to gaol for this before.  You had knowledge of the person involved.  You had the weapon and, indeed, the charge itself indicates that your role is more serious.

24As I have indicated again to counsel in a plea this morning, I have a large number of authorities in relation to this including the decision of Clark and it seems to me that at the end of the day the differences between you are such, in terms of criminal history and level of involvement, that a significant degree of differential can be made so far as parity is concerned.

25Insofar as other matters are concerned in general terms, firstly, the offending is obviously serious and has to be a custodial sentence.  I might indicate from the outset that the Crown's submission was that a custodial sentence with a head sentence with a minimum term was the appropriate sentence.  Were this a situation where you had not each done 622 days on remand I would agree with that proposition, but it seems to me that when you look at Boulton and various other decisions and the decision of Younger, that a community corrections order after a significant period of imprisonment is within range, and I have had you, Mr Rossiter, and you, Mr Lang, assessed and you have been found to be acceptable.

26It calls necessarily for general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation and appropriate punishment.  General deterrence in these situations obviously plays an important role and is usually determinative of an active custodial sentence which, of course, is what I am going to do.

27Insofar as all of you are concerned, you now have been on remand in a potentially at least lockdown situation.  I think most of the gaols are on a
12 hour lockdown.  You have lost access to programs.  You have been in a situation where you have been unable to get personal visits.  You are, in the circumstances of a fear or contracting the COVID-19 virus in a situation where you have been powerless to do anything about it and you are in circumstances where you obviously have the fear of family outside catching it.  In one situation are your parents, in another, children.  Those factors have been playing on your minds now for a period of time and I take them very much into account.  I also take that into account in terms of how much extra time, if any, needs to be served in this particular situation.

28Insofar as the offence of home invasion or aggravated burglary, as it used to be called, is concerned, I am well aware of the decision in Hogarth.  As I have indicated, a number of authorities were handed up to me during the course of the plea and I have read a number of authorities since.  There are a number of sentences in this court, in the last couple of weeks even, for not dissimilar offending, and I take those into account.

29I simply say this, that the ones where very significant sentences have been imposed, almost invariably involve the use of weapons.  I think I Clark their victim was beaten with metal poles.  I do not think I need to go into an analysis of each and every one of those for as far as you, Mr Lang and Mr Rossiter, are concerned, weapons do not play a part in it and as I have said about three times, I have to be very careful not to let that occur.  It could be argued that so far as the assault is concerned that you were present when the weapon was used to do that and you would have been aware of the axe by that period of time.  I do not know that I could find that beyond reasonable doubt, though that would look a very strong possibility.  However, the use of the axe belonged entirely to you, Mr Sydes, and I simply say no more than that at this point in time.

30I then look to matters personal to each of you and very helpful submissions were filed on your behalves.  I will direct that the exhibits in this matter remain on file so that I do not have to go into great detail to read out great slabs of reports or anything along those lines.  Each of your personal histories can be dealt with in fairly short compass and that is what I propose to do.

31You, as I have already indicated, Mr Sydes, have prior convictions going back some time.  You have been gaoled twice or three times, as I calculate it, for various offending.  Most importantly, in March 2013, you were given a total of two years for violence in a situation of an aggravated burglary.  Clearly, you were aware of the consequences or potential consequences at least of such behaviour.

32Since you have been in gaol you have completed a significant number of courses.  You would appear to have been endeavouring to better yourself.  As I have already indicated, sentencing judges have been told that about you before.

33Your history is such that you were the second of four children and you had real difficulties with your father, who was an untreated paranoid schizophrenic.  I can understand that that would have had an extremely traumatic effect on a
13 year old child living with a person who was in fear and would walk around the house with a gun, believing he was going to be killed.  I have got no doubt that that would give rise to a somewhat paranoiac disposition on your part. Be that as it may.

34You left school when you were in Year 8.  You went to a community school and then you completed a work for the dole course.  You have a significant and long work history, which is very much to your credit, and again I do not think I need to go through all the detail of that.  Up until the time of this offending you had been working and there is no reason why, on your ultimate release, why you would not be able to work again.  In your situation, as with each of you, it is important in this set of circumstances where you have each done a lot of courses, that since the arrival of COVID-19, that that progress has effectively had to be ceased.  You have been working in prison on a full time basis in the workshop and there are 47 prisoners that work there and about 15 to 30 present for work each day.  It is obviously a position of some responsibility and I take that into account on your behalf.  A number of courses have been undertaken.

35Your counsel agreed in your situation that the only potential principle of Verdins was the mental condition which would cause you more difficulty in gaol, and I take that into account in a limited way.  It seems to me that the way you function in gaol would not seem to be indicative of not having too much trouble with it but, again, it would be dangerous, I think, to be going into speculation about that.  You are the representative for your remand unit.  You are in a Christian program run within the gaol.  You have weekly contact with people on the outside and again, I do not have to go through all the history of your relationships and work.

36You have had relationships in the past where you have had a situation of looking after children.  Mr Parker, who examined you, made a number of statements.  He said, 'It's likely Mr Sydes experienced bipolar disorder, that
Mr Sydes experiences bipolar disorder Type 2', and went on to say, 'It's my opinion, Mr Sydes experiences bipolar disorder for many years, like resulting from childhood sexual abuse and witnessing family violence.  As a way to cope with overwhelming emotions he began to use cannabis, amphetamines and alcohol and the negative cycle in drug and alcohol use is a way of managing his mental health impacted past relationship and employment'.

37You had not long before this offending occurred sought mental health assistance from a general medical practitioner who sent you to a psychiatrist.  You were then given antidepressant medication but you had ceased using that about a month before the offending took place.  Whilst at Fulham Prison you apparently engaged in 16 sessions of counselling run by the prison psychiatric nurse, which included weekly sessions over a four month period.  That was completed in around about August 2019 and effectively related to anger management.

38You do, on what is put before me, have positive family and partner supports in the community.  You will have somewhere to live.  You certainly have the capacity to work and in those circumstances one could be hopeful at least about your prospects of rehabilitation.  Judging by the ferocity of this sort of attack one has concerns about the risk of you reoffending but you must have reached the age now where you realise that what is going to have to be a very significant sentence for this offending because of the serious nature of it, that any repeat of this type of offending will see you end up in gaol as a very old man.  They will all be matters that really are up to you, Mr Sydes, and taken into account.  There is no suggestion here that a community corrections order could be or would be appropriate and the sentence will be one of a jail sentence with a minimum term.

39Insofar as you are concerned, Mr Lang, I think I have already been through the differences between yourself and Mr Sydes.  I do not think there is any real need to distinguish between you and Mr Rossiter to any extent in these circumstances.

40Your situation is that you are 47 and were 45 at the time of the offending.  You had apparently separated from your partner, with whom you have two daughters and two stepchildren, only a couple of months before all this occurred.  You had an upbringing of some emotional difficulty in it but you now have the support of both parents and you say that you enjoy good relationships with them.  This is your first time in custody and as I have indicated now, have then there for 622 days.  You have maintained contact with your daughters and parents during that time on remand and have applied yourself to rehabilitation.  You have been affected by the COVID-19 because now your family cannot visit you regularly, though you are trying to maintain contact by phone.  You have no particular mental health problems but you had effectively been a semi-functional heroin addict for several years prior to the remand for this offending. You had also abused alcohol significantly.  You are able to maintain work, even subjected to your addictions.  You are both HIV positive and hep C positive, which of course will cause you greater fear in terms of contracting the COVID-19 virus.

41Your parents separated at an early age.  I have taken into account, on your behalf, all the references that have been put before me.  You do have a criminal history but, as I have indicated, it is of limited significance.  The CCTV does tend to support your version that you tried to stop the - or at least, in theory, the ferocity of the attack that was - or the ferocity of the fear that was being placed in the mind of the victim but having watched, as I said, the CCTV, you certainly were doing what you could to make sure that detection was not possible.

42You, as with Mr Sydes, and as with Mr Rossiter, have spent your time in prison well.  You have availed yourself of a large number of courses and I do not need to go through all those again.  I am told that you have rediscovered your Christian faith and that is really a matter for you.  I am going to say that without comment.  If that is true then it should be a situation where it assists in your ultimate rehabilitation.

43You are in a circumstance where you have had a long term addiction to heroin and a long term addiction to alcohol.  What is of importance in your circumstances is that in the 622 days in which you have been on remand you have had no alcohol, you have cold turkey withdrawal from all opiates and you are free from methadone.  It is a situation where you have been completely clean now for over a year.  I understand and accept that you have been deeply engaged in the prison's Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous groups and have taken a leading role in them.  Obviously that has come apart because of COVID-19.  You have paid close attention to your physical and mental health in that gaol condition and you are doing the best you can.  When you are ultimately released your father runs his own business and you intend to go and work with him to support that business.  He is now starting to age and is having difficulty with it.

44I accept the submissions of your counsel that you are now, for the first time in your life, have literally made a decision to re-enter your life or put yourself in a situation where you can do so without drug addiction and start working again.  You have family support, a place to live, work to do, and clearly in your situation a chance of seeing the children, as motivation.  You were in a situation of obvious upset at the time that all this occurred because of the relationship break-up, which I think you told somebody was due to your drug use.

45You have done as much as could be asked of you, I think, in that situation and, again, as I have indicated, I have looked at all the reports and all the references on your behalf and one can only hope that your prospects of rehabilitation are good, if not already achieved.  The risk of you reoffending has been assessed, as I understand it, by Corrections, as medium.  I think that is probably right, but I think that if you are ever going to come good you have reached the age, and this is a situation in which you can do it.  Obviously the report of Mr Parker remains on the court file.

46You, Mr Rossiter, are in a not dissimilar situation to Mr Lang, and again, I have had the benefit of submissions on your behalf.  You have had other difficulties that have come into your life.  You were initially in a 13 year relationship with Ms Antrovis.  There is one child of that relationship, who is 20 and lives in Bendigo.  You have a nine year relationship with a lady named Jessica Thomas, and that relationship ended in 2009 and there are two children of that relationship, Ebony and Kiarn, 18 and 16 years of age.

47The mother of those children passed away a short time ago and clearly from the material that I have received the children are in distress about that and that is something that weighs heavily upon you in your custodial environment.  She had been involved in a car accident in 2017 with you in which a person was killed, and I will be coming back to that in a moment.  You, since 2010, have been in a relationship with a Tracey Slenders.  She suffers from schizophrenia.  You were her carer.  She is a disability support worker and she is living in your home in Cockatoo.

48You, as I have already indicated, have the benefit of the plea of guilty.  I accept that remorse in your situation is genuine.  I think in your particular circumstances the history and summary of the matter can be best contained in the report by Ms Lechner and she points out in her report that you are now 48.  She has found that you have the symptoms of residual PTSD, an adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety, and that is part of it is subject to secondary to being imprisoned.  She points out that you have no history of violence, personality disorder or anything along those lines.  It is put that the offending is out of character and you do have a reasonably stable family and steady employment in 2014 when you suffered a serious back injury, and I will come back to that in a moment.

49Again, I am not going to go into how all this offending came about.  I have got my doubts and we do not need to take that any further.  You have suffered chronic pain and depression after a work incident in 2014.  It as in 2017 that the motor vehicle collision concerned occurred, where a passenger in the other vehicle was killed.  The psychological consequences of that have persisted to this day.  You have been on an antidepressant medication for some time.  She said that you evidenced a good ability for consequential thinking.  She said that you expressed regret and shame for your actions as well as showing appropriate victim empathy.  Those matters are important in this situation.  I accept that they are there for Mr Lang as well.

50She said that in custody you have focussed on your rehabilitation by working and attending courses where possible.  She said, 'He currently presents with a favourable prognosis and a low risk of reoffending on account of the following factors'.  She points out the various matters that I have already referred to.

51It is not put that in your situation principles of Verdins necessarily apply but you are in the same set of circumstances Mr Lang is in, in these sentences.  You have now had a long period of time in incarceration.  Rather than sit and sulk you have done the best that you can do in terms of rehabilitating yourself and endeavouring to be able to get on with your life when you get out.  Of real importance, in my view at least, in your set of circumstances are the prospects of what will happen when you do return.

52I have a letter here from your partner, Ms Slenders, who says that she had been in a relationship with you for a period of nine years.  She talked about the three children and your relationship with them, which has been very special.  She said that since you have been remanded the girls have been struggling.  They are hurt and frustrated that they are missing you.  You have been a very strong support for her with her schizophrenic symptoms for a significant period of time and it is a situation where whilst it does not give rise to the exceptional circumstances required for mercy towards her, I accept that having been in custody whilst these factors are operating in the background has been very difficult for you.

53Again there is another matter which I think is of real significance, and that is a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services.  I do not know I have ever seen a letter like this before in a plea hearing.  I really do not think I have.  That letter says, 'I can confirm that Child Protection involved with Mr Rossiter's daughter, Ms Kiarn Thomson-Rossiter, there are current Children's Court orders in place and Kiarn is on an Interim Accommodation Order to her stepmother, Ms Tracey Slenders, who is the partner of Mr Steve Rossiter.  The department can confirm that it would like Mr Rossiter to be released from incarceration so he can take on primary care of Kiarn.  The department have not have prior protective concerns in relation to Mr Rossiter and will continue to support him and Ms Slenders' care and for Kiarn.  If you require any further information please contact'.  As I said, I do not know I have ever seen one of those before, but what it does indicate, that people who have assessed you, have examined you and who are obviously concerned with the welfare of your children, have no concerns about your conduct. That gives me added confidence in the terms of once you are out you have had all the motivation and hopefully desire to continue this rehabilitation.  Your rehabilitation, I think, is well underway and hopefully can be continued.  The risk of you reoffending, whilst assessed by Corrections as high, I think that is on a statistical basis rather than a subjective examination of you.

54As I have indicated with you, Mr Lang, Mr Rossiter, I have had you each assessed for a Community Corrections Order.  I have now had those reports and have been able to read them.  Each one indicates you are acceptable and each one of them is in a situation where various programs are described.  As I have indicated to counsel already, I am going to impose CCOs after a period of imprisonment.  In your situation I do not consider that work hours are required.  I think that the programs that I will be directing you to be placed upon will operate as a significant factor in your ultimate rehabilitation as well as imposing various obligations on you which would have somewhat the same effect as work hours.  In any event, as has been pointed out recently, when I impose these conditions and do impose work hours I usually make the conditions set up against the work hours, in any event.  So I do not think that is a real bone of contention.  I am not going to go through the principles of Boulton, principles of Bradshaw, cases such as that, which indicate the benefit of all this.

55A Corrections order will be for an extended period of time.  It will simply mean that you will be put back into home or family environments.  You will have additional supports within the community.  You will be given programs to endeavour to ensure or assess that your rehabilitation continues and that whatever risk of reoffending there is, is subsequently reduced.  That is one of the purposes of a Community Corrections order and when it comes down to it, I think you have almost done enough to imprisonment to satisfy any needs for that part of the sentence.

56Accordingly, the sentences as follows, taking all those matters into account as best as I can, having looked at a significant number of authorities, you, Mr Sydes, on Charge 1, five and a half years.  On Charge 2, 18 months.  Six months of Charge 2 cumulative on the sentence imposed on Charge 1 gives a head sentence of six years.  You have to serve a minimum term of four years and three months before becoming eligible for parole.  I direct that 622 days be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.

57Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act I say that but for your plea of guilty you would have been sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of nine years with a minimum term of six and a half.

58I have given some thought as to whether this should be aggregate with the other two but I think the simplest bet is I will just do it this way. You, Mr Lang, on Charge 1, are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 22 months. On Charges 1 and 2, upon your release from custody you are to be on a three year CCO. It will be with conviction. The conditions will be: treatment and rehabilitation for alcohol; treatment and rehabilitation for mental health; and supervision. I direct that 622 days be reckoned as having been served under this sentence. Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act I say that but for your plea of guilty you would have been sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four and a half years with a minimum term of three.

59You, Mr Rossiter, Charge 1, 22 months, and then on Charges 1 and 2, three year CCO, with conviction. The conditions on yours being medical, programs to reduce reoffending, and supervision. Again, I direct that 622 days be reckoned as having been served under this sentence and as with Mr Lang, pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I say that but for your plea of guilty you would have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of four and a half years with a minimum term of three. Bearing in mind the size of the sentence that has been imposed, whether I impose a minimum term is somewhat discretionary but the situation where I do not propose to do that, counsel agree that it would be inappropriate in these circumstances and I believed that there was legislation which said I did not have to, but just so it is clear from the sentencing - - -

60MR DANN:  In fact Your Honour is prevented from it in the legislation.

61HIS HONOUR:  That is right.  I thought that had happened.  Yes, thanks for that, yes.  All right.  So each of you agree to the CCOs?

62COUNSEL:  Yes, Your Honour.

63HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  I will sign those.  All right.  Are there any other orders I need to make?

64COUNSEL:  No, Your Honour.

65MR FISHER:  Disposal order I think but Your Honour might have made that on the last occasion.

66HIS HONOUR:  Already done the disposal order and the summary charges were struck out.

67MR FISHER:  Yes, that is right, yes.  Just the disposal order, thanks.

- - -