Director of Public Prosecutions v Lewis

[2025] VCC 283

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT GEELONG

CRIMINAL DIVISION

CR-24-02012

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

WILLIAM HOWARD LEWIS

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	12 March 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Lewis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 283

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject: Contravene prohibition order made under Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004;  Abduction or detention of a child under 16 for sexual purposes; Knowingly possess child abuse material. 54 years of age at sentence. Early plea; Bugmy; Lengthy criminal history for a range of sexual offences. Serious sexual offender.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr A. McKenry	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. McGarvie (at Plea) Mr A. Paull (at Sentence)	Adrian Paull Criminal Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

1William Howard Lewis, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of contravening a prohibition order made under the Sex Offenders Registration Act, one charge of abduction or detention of a child under the age of 16 for sexual purposes and one charge of knowingly possess child abuse material.

2You are 54 years of age, and have a lengthy criminal history involving all manner of sexual offences in the past including one charge of rape and many instances of indecent assault. You have been imprisoned often enough, have even been at one point a resident up at Corella place in Ararat, and the subject of a supervision order. You have done many courses and programs, but none have had any success. You are insightless as to your sexual deviancy, however it may be labelled and relatively insightless as to the disinhibition arising from drug or alcohol use and the interplay of those substances with your deviancy.  Further, you seemingly possess no motivation to stop drug or alcohol use. You are also quite insightless as to the damage that you cause when you offend. You just keep offending irrespective of the presumed curbs placed on offending represented by your lifetime reporting obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act and the formal prohibition order that was made by the Magistrate in May of 2022.

3The maximum penalties are correctly set out in the written summary placed before me, being five years' imprisonment for Charge 1 and 10 years' imprisonment for each of the other two charges - that is the abduction of the child and the possession of the child abuse material.

4Charge 2, the abduction or detention charge, involves as far as I am concerned, a deeply worrying escalation involving as it does an approach to a
nine-year-old schoolgirl in a public place and the pushing of her off into the bushes and then pulling her to the ground and hence the detention of her for sexual purposes. You present a very large risk into the future, I am afraid, and that is irrespective of what I do to you. I have given you, I think, in those short opening remarks, something of a preview as to my findings as to your prospects or rehabilitation. I will come back to those matters a little bit later in my reasons. Firstly, though, let me deal with the facts.

5I am not going to employ the names of the young victim or her sister or her mother, but even if I did, there can be no publicity afforded to this matter such as to lead to any identification of the victim or her family.  But as I say, I will refer to her, and to her mum, without using names.

6The matter was opened to me earlier this week, on Wednesday, and that was pursuant to a written plea opening dated 8 January 2025.  That document was marked as Exhibit A on the plea.

7Ms McGarvie appeared on your behalf earlier this week and she informed the court that this was an agreed opening, and for that reason, there is really little need or utility in my just slavishly restating all of those facts in these my reasons. I will sentence in accordance with that agreed document, which of course is longer than my summary of it.  It refers to the prohibition order that was made and also the video audio recorded evidence (‘VARE’) of your young victim, and obviously I have regard to that material as well.  I also have regard to the photographs that are contained within the depositions as well as the police interview conducted with you.  

8It seems to me, though, that without some statement as to the facts, my reasons and the actual sentences that I will shortly impose would just exist in something of a vacuum and they would not make much sense to anyone who happens to access these reasons when they ultimately are published.

9At the time of these events back in June 2024, you were living with your ex- wife’s parents at their place out in Clifton Springs. You were then the subject of a lifetime reporting obligation under the Sex Offenders Registration Act. You had also in May 2022 been made the subject of a sex offender prohibition order, that is a serious order made by a Magistrate under the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act. The order was made, it was served upon you, and it was made because of your level of risk. That order ran for three years and it was quite explicit as to behaviour you must not engage in. You were not permitted to have any physical contact with a child or even to contact any child.

10On the 24h June of last year at around four o'clock in the afternoon, a nine-year-old girl was walking along the Bellarine rail trail to her home, so walking home from school. We can see her images at pp241 and 161.  One of those images is after this incident where she is accompanied to the home by her sister who is on the scooter. She was unmistakably a primary school child. She was in uniform. She was a little girl.   I understand that her older sister was actually going to meet her to take her home.

11You were seated on a seat on the right-hand side of that rail trail. You had for some reason ridden your bike there and for some reason chosen to sit there. As the child approached, you motioned with your fingers for her to come over. She wisely moved away from you, going wider out on the path and she continued walking, and before she had passed you, you pulled down your pants and underwear and you exposed your penis as she was walking past.

12There is no suggestion in the materials, none, including in your interview, that you pulled your pants up.

13She looked away and moved past you and you then grabbed her from behind by pinning her left arm and holding her waist.  That act plainly breached the prohibition order. That was bad enough, of course it was, but what followed was much worse. You then pushed her into the nearby bushes and whilst still holding her arms you moved to her front, and you then lay down on the ground and pulled her down on top of you. She screamed and she managed to free herself from your grip and she kicked you in the groin region and ran away, alerting her sister by mobile phone as she did, and meeting up with her sister and being escorted back home.  That is where we see that image that I referred to earlier in these reasons – the two girls coming up the drive.

14Family members were advised, the police were notified and video audio recorded statements were conducted with your direct victim, the nine-year-old girl, and her sister who was 14 or 15.

15You were identified as a result of descriptions, a FACEFIT drawing, a very accurate compilation drawing of your bike, some CCTV footage, as well as your phone pinging and being in the area.  There was also DNA from a swab of her clothing, and that disclosed DNA matching your DNA with some astronomical likelihood ratio in the billions. You were on the database already, of course.

16You were arrested on 28 June and a very strange police interview then followed. You chose to 'no comment', as was your right, and that was consistent through the interview, but there were some partial answers along the way.  Then at one point, at Questions 113 and 114, you made some obviously extremely damaging admissions, admissions that within a short space of time you were then trying to backpedal from, trying to recant, saying things to the no doubt puzzled police member like, 'it’s your word against mine', but in circumstances where you had already just placed yourself at the scene grabbing a girl.

17You phone was examined, and a report was produced that disclosed that you had a handful of child abuse images, one falling into Category 1 and the other seven falling into that second category that is described.  They are referred to at paragraphs 18 to 19.  As these things go, of course, this is a small number of images compared to what we often enough see both in this court and in the Magistrates Court for that matter.

18You have been in custody since your arrest and the matter settled at the earliest opportunity.

19So much then for my brief summary of the far lengthier summary in this matter.  As I say, I sentence in accordance with the agreed summary placed before me.

20As was conceded by your counsel, this was really serious offending. She conceded the large impact and the very frightening nature of this conduct upon the young girl.

Impact

21I turn then to that impact. I have these two impact statements, one from the direct victim, the other from her mother. The mother's statement was read aloud, as per her wishes. Your direct victim, now as I calculate it, a 10-year-old child, did not want her impact statement read aloud, and in those circumstances and for that reason, I will not spell out all of the detail within that document. Often I do in my sentencing reasons but when a victim nominates that she does not want it read aloud, I take the view that it is probably best for me then not to place the detail in my reasons, so I will not.  Plainly she is describing - and this is through the eyes of a 10-year-old - a large ongoing impact and how could there not be from such a frightening act as yours? The mother’s impact statement was read aloud by the prosecutor.  Now there was an initial portion of that which was not read out aloud or relied upon, relating to some of her experiences in the past, and that obviously is not admissible so I will not have regard to that first portion.  But as to the crimes that I am dealing with, she speaks of the very sizable impact that she has observed on her child; anxiety, altered behaviour and concerns as to going outside and discomfort around male figures. The mother has had to try to protect her daughter. Her daughter will not have play dates. She did not attend school camp last year. She struggled with school outings, and she, the mother, believes her daughter has lost a sense of certainty in her life and is very clingy. She says her daughter is still immensely affected. That statement was written recently, in January of this year. There have also been a range of financial costs as well as things have been done to adapt the house to deal with these altered feelings and the loss of sense of security.

22I have only touched upon a few aspects of what is within the mother's impact statement.  I take into account that more complete document, other than of course that inadmissible portion I referred to. I take into account also the details within the child’s impact statement as well.

23The impact of a crime is one of a large number of matters that a court is required to take into account.  There are many other matters that I must have regard to, including the various matters in mitigation which have been placed before me by Ms McGarvie in the course of the plea that she conducted on your behalf.  I must guard against the impact of your crimes swamping consideration of these other sentencing factors in this case.  I am though required to take into account the impact of your crimes, and I do. It has been immense.  As brief as your conduct was, as brief as this contact was, it was deeply frightening, and your victim will continue to be significantly affected into the future. She will never forget your crime. Nor will her mother, or grandmother for that matter, ever forget this day.

In Mitigation

24Ms McGarvie appeared on your behalf. My experience of her is that she is always very well prepared and conducts an excellent and realistic plea, and this plea was no exception, though it must be said she had very little to work with. That is not a criticism of her. It is simply as a result of you and your conduct and your past involvement with the criminal justice system.

25She relied upon a written outline of plea submissions dated 11 March, as well as a report from a psychologist Mr Patrick Newton. There was also a letter from the Alfred Hospital confirming some ongoing issues back in 2024 relating to the serious burns that you sustained back in 2022. There was a Corrections document spelling out your isolation from other prisoners owing to an alleged assault upon you in October 2024, and a single course completion document.  She also placed before me a bundle of either summaries of other matters or the sentencing remarks of Judge Barnett from 2003, and also the Court of Appeal decision from 2006.[1]  I did not need to mark that, but I decided to mark them all as a bundle.

[1]The Queen v William Howard Lewis [2006] VSCA 272

26In her very thorough and realistic plea, either by reference to the expert report or in her oral submissions, the court was informed of your family and your personal background. She submitted it was one of some disadvantage. She took me to your educational, employment and relationship history, as well as to your history of drug and alcohol use. She worked her way through your long criminal history and the chronology of those sentences over the years. She made some submissions as to your prospects of rehabilitation, and really it was put no higher than this:  she argued that I ought not find them to be completely extinguished in this case.

27She made some submissions as to the objective seriousness of the offending, and in relation to Charge 2, the absence at least of some features of aggravation.

28She relied chiefly upon the following matters:

·     your co-operation with the police as well as your early guilty plea;

·     Your disadvantaged early background and the application of the principles from a High Court decision of Bugmy[2] which has been applied in many other cases in this State - that was the general application of those principles;

·     She relied upon some increased burden of imprisonment flowing from the burns you had sustained back in 2022 and ongoing issues you had in relation to pain management. There was also some lesser impact arising from what was described as a broken jaw from an assault in prison back in October of last year.

[2]Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 (‘Bugmy’)

29The issue of remorse only arose when I queried if it was being relied upon here at all.  I did that because it was not mentioned in what were obviously comprehensive written submissions and that suggested to me that it was not being relied upon.  In discussion there was a relatively faint submission as to the remorse that might be implied from the guilty plea and from some of the things you had told Mr Newton. I suspect we ended where we started with remorse not really being relied upon here.  

30Your counsel conceded this was very serious offending which could only be met with a substantial prison term and a non-parole period. I raised whether this was a case where consideration might be given to not fixing a non-parole period. I have never raised that issue in 15 years on the bench. I raised it as a matter of fairness so that your counsel could address me on that topic, because it is not the sort of submission that one is in the habit of making.  She did make a submission and argued that the court ought fix a non-parole period in this case. That there was still some chance of rehabilitation.

Prosecution

31Mr McKenry who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, made some submissions as to sentence arguing that this was very serious offending where there was a strong need for community protection.  There was nothing controversial about that at all. So much had been readily accepted.  He submitted the setting was a dreadful one, and as brief as the attack was, it has had obviously lasting impact. He submitted it came to an end only as a result of the young girl breaking free and kicking you.  The prosecution said you were firmly entrenched in committing acts of sexual misconduct, and that would be evident even without Mr Newton’s gloomy report. You have been committing sexual offences for decades now, they said, without much respite. The Crown argued you have selected a range of victims over the years, always vulnerable to some extent, a child here, a child raped back in 2004, a sleeping 18-year-old woman indecently assaulted when you were dealt with by Judge Barnett back in 2003. You have offended against girls and women, whether they are alone or in company, asleep or awake. The crown argued that you have no prospects of rehabilitation - none - that you are who you are and you just cannot change. You will continue to act against people sexually. They argued that when one looked at the chronology of past offending you had very evidently been told by Judge Barnett about disinhibition brought about by drug use and the need to deal with that to avoid further sexual offending.  We know now from the report of Mr Newton that that was perhaps an overly simplistic view of your offending, but you were given a very strong tip by a Judge of this court to desist from drug use, and of course you have not. You were arguing the toss about cannabis legalisation in your police interview.  Mr Newton, of course, confirms it would be of use for you to desist from substance use because there is a disinhibition brought about by it that goes hand-in-glove with the deviant tendencies that you have.  But you show no signs of following that advice, argue the Crown. You are sexually deviant, impulsive, disinhibited and with no desire or capacity to change, and they argue that you present a very high risk of reoffending sexually into future. They were some of the arguments of the Crown.

Background

32I will turn to your background. It was set out mainly in the report of Mr Newton. Your counsel adopted that background and added in some detail to fill in the picture. I do not see any need to restate it all. Though most of the detail emanates from you, either to your counsel or to Mr Newton, there is some consistency with what others have been told in the past.  I am prepared to accept the background details placed before. I am not going to set it all out.

33You are 54 years of age now.  You are the youngest of seven children. Three of your siblings are deceased, I believe, and you are estranged from the balance. There is no family support in the community, your parents are long since deceased. They died when you were serving the rape sentence that was imposed.

34Your father, I am told had a temper, and I am told also he dominated the family, that you and others were subjected to his violence. There was also some emotional abuse.  You were not a great student, and you report to Mr Newton a history of behavioural disturbance. You were suspended. You wound up at a special school at the end of your schooling.  

35You have had a relatively patchy employment record with work very early on as a butcher's apprentice, you did not like that, then as a truck driver and also as a factory hand. 

36The relationship history is set out in the report at paragraphs 18 through to 24.  You and your wife Julia were together from about 2015 to 2022.  You married in 2020.  The relationship failed and you were left without a roof over your head. In the lead-up to this offending I am dealing with, I am told you had been refused emergency housing and your wife’s parents stepped in and assisted you. They are your only supports and they continue to visit you. I should say, your mother-in-law was present during the plea the other day, I think she is back here today and by the looks of it so too your father-in-law.

37Following on from the separation with your wife you attempted suicide in 2022 by self-immolation. You sustained very serious burns indeed which led to very significant time in an intensive care unit and then later in the wards within a hospital. You had skin grafts and there have been many ongoing issues including chronic pain requiring strong pain relief. 

38You have in the past engaged in offence specific counselling and treatment with a number of people.  There is reference to David Ball (see paragraph two in Mr Newton’s report).  You have also done comprehensive sex offender treatment. You could not discuss any detail of the program content when speaking to Mr Newton.  You said you would be prepared to do a ‘refresher course.’ I wonder how many courses you have done. He says you had not maintained the ‘mastery’ of the content. That is something of an understatement.  

39I cannot work on the theory of there being some acquired brain injury.  There is reference to that in the report, but that was not pressed on the plea, nor was there any suggestion that any of the principles from the case of Verdins had any application to my task. That was specifically disavowed.  In custody, you are working in the bakery, and I am prepared to accept that you were assaulted in October of last year. You sought or received isolation, and that by late November you had been moved to your present location at Karreenga. You are housed now in accommodation with other sex offenders. That had not been the position at Ravenhall where you had been in protection but not exclusively with sex offenders. 

40Pain relief is an ongoing issue.

41You do not have access to the sorts of medication which have been of assistance when you were in the community.

42You have had long term issues with alcohol and cannabis and told Mr Newton that much of your offending occurs when you are, as you put it, 'drunk and stoned'. You have but a rudimentary understanding of substance related problems, and though they have a role, they plainly do not lie at the very heart of your offending. There is a deviancy spoken of in the report, one where disinhibition and impulsiveness obviously have a role to play as well.

43Your criminal history is long and there are many instances of sexual offences.  I am not going to go chapter and verse through every line of it. There is no purpose doing that. The history will not alter. It will be there for anyone else to view.  Your counsel was not able to advise me of all of the details, no doubt because you could not. She did provide me with some summaries of some of the more recent offending, as well as the Court of Appeal decision in relation to the 2004 rape and Judge Barnett’s sentencing remarks from 2003. As I have said already, that was all marked as a bundle, Exhibit 5.  His Honour Judge Barnett described, as at 2003, his understanding of some of the prior matters that were then in existence.  Presumably then he was referring to matters pre-dating that appearance, many matters in the 90s.  There was an offensive behaviour back in 1991 and that may well have related to an act of public urination. That was often the position for that sort of crime. Your counsel accepted that a wilful and obscene exposure where that appeared in your history generally spoke of a more extravagant and worrying conduct, with a sexual dimension such as masturbation in a public place. There were two indecent assaults dealt with in 1993, and by the looks of it, the Director of Public Prosecutions was not too pleased with the outcome there and appealed to this Court and a term of imprisonment was substituted in this Court.  I have no details of that offending; I have no details of the victim or victims.  You have two prior matters for trafficking in cannabis.  Then there was the offending dealt with in November 1995, wilful and obscene exposure, and the following year indecent behaviour in public. In 1997 a further indecent assault - again, I have no detail of that offence or who it related to, their age, or the setting. Then I have the October 2003 entry related to Judge Barnett’s sentencing.  This is where you indecently assaulted an 18-year-old sleeping woman who woke up with your hands down her underpants. Then the 2004 rape dealt with at this court sitting up in Wodonga and then appealed by you to the Court of Appeal. That offence likely occurred, when I look at the chronology, when you were on the intensive corrections order imposed by Judge Barnett, given the commission date, though nothing much hangs on that. That rape was of a 15-year-old girl who woke to find you on top of her and there was then some violence as you raped her. I have those reasons as well.

44Ms McGarvie walked me though the periods when you were in custody and then when you were released. I am not going to set all that out. You were paroled in July 2013, but parole was revoked a year later and you then served out the balance of the sentence with it lapsing in, it would seem, late February 2015. You were within a short time the subject of a three-year supervision order and I was told you spent some time living up in Corella Place.  They are orders that are made, not routinely, but under particular provisions of a particular Act when there is such a level of risk that there must be some supervision extending beyond a person's time in custody. You failed to comply with that order, and you also failed to comply with your Sex Offenders Registration Act reporting obligations with those appearances that we see in March of 2016 and September of 2017.  

45The matters dealt with by way of an 18-month community corrections order imposed at the Geelong Magistrates Court on 11 February 2022 relate to the summaries of Informants Kot and Wood.  These are in Exhibit 5.

46The Kot matter involved you in July 2020 parking next to a lone female who had parked her car down in a park to go for a jog during her lunchbreak.  You parked there as well and in such a way as she could see you and you could see her. You parked in a very strange location given all the other car parks that were available in the car park, and you did that because of what you were doing, masturbating in your car. The Wood matter had you on 31 December 2021 approaching two young girls who were swimming off the boat ramp down in Clifton Springs. There is no doubt about how old they were, you asked, and they told you.  They said they were 13 and your response was to say they were, as you put it, 'hot for 13-year-olds'.  Not hot because of the temperature obviously, you were referring to a sexual dimension there, and if that was in doubt you then asked if they would like to see your car.  When they declined you asked if they liked alcohol. So this is the sex offender loiter charge that was dealt with.  That community corrections order that was imposed for 18 months, should have run to about August 2023 but was breached in May 2023.

47Though it is not part of your criminal history, as I have said already, you were placed on the prohibition order in May 2022.

48Finally, there is the fail to comply with your Sex Offenders Registration Act reporting obligations the subject of the Smith matter. That related to not reporting an alteration in your work arrangements.  That and other matters were dealt with on 5 May 2023 and you received a 12-month undertaking to be of good behaviour and to continue counselling with Gary McMullen. So, unless I am mistaken, I do not believe I am, you were on that undertaking when you committed the offences that I am dealing with.

49You have a lengthy and relevant criminal history. I have not gone to all of it. There are matters of violence as well as dishonesty and weapons offences and plainly you have breached many court orders that have been designed to keep you in the community.

50Now, I need to make it plain to you that you do not fall to be sentenced a second time for any of this past offending, you received those past sentences, and you served them.  Your past criminal history does not in any way aggravate this offending, or for that matter remove the need for me to impose a proportionate sentence.

51I am required by law to pass proportionate sentences for your offending.

52I do, however, have to make judgements as to your level of culpability, your prospects of rehabilitation, the extent of the need to deter you, your risk of reoffence and the weight that must be given to protection of the community in this sentencing exercise.  You, I am afraid, are a real menace.  I must protect the community from you and that is in my view the principal purpose of sentencing at play here. That would be so independent of the directives in the Serious Sexual Offender provisions within the Sentencing Act which apply to my sentencing tasks on Charges 2 and 3

53Let me return then to the way I view your early and developmental background.

54Your counsel was arguing that the principles from the well-known cases of Bugmy and Hermann[3] applied in the general fashion referred to in those cases.

[3]DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160 (‘Herrmann’)

55An offender's circumstances and their experience during their childhood or their formative years needs to be considered by a court in the sentencing task, and that is because the effects of social disadvantage do not diminish with time, they are likely to have profound and lasting consequences. They can sometimes explain, though not excuse, the offending.  So taking lifelong damage the result of childhood exposure to violence, abuse or neglect into account when a court is sentencing is really just the mark of a humane society.

56The application of these principles does not require proof of a causal connection between the background and the offending, and nor did your counsel suggest there was that causal link here. Plainly there is not.

57Nor is there any need to establish disadvantage to a particularly high standard.  That used to be thought to be the position flowing from that High Court decision of Bugmy, but it is not.

58It is pretty clear to me that yours was not an ideal background.  It is mostly based on your self-report, but I am satisfied your background was disadvantaged to a degree.  That is not that uncommon for those who sit in the dock, if I may say so.  There was a level of dysfunction and instability in your early and developmental years.  There was some exposure to violence at the hands of your dad and seeing that also visited upon your mother and siblings as well. There was some emotional abuse or manipulation. It was not an enviable background, and so I give it full weight in the way in which that phrase is employed in the case law including those cases I have referred to, Bugmy and Herrmann, and other cases since including cases of Sabatucci[4], Newton[5] and Dhal[6]. 

[4]Sabbatucci v The Queen [2021] VSCA 340

[5]Newton (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 22

[6]Dhal v The King [2023] VSCA 289

59I take your background into account as far as I am able to, including as giving rise to some reduction in your culpability. The case law makes it clear enough though that social disadvantage will not attract the same weight in every case or in the same fashion, that the weight to be given to disadvantage will depend on the nature and the extent of that disadvantage, the nexus, if any, with the offending, though as I have said, no causal link is required, but also the nature of the crime or crimes under consideration.  It requires also a consideration of the relative importance in the particular case of sentencing considerations such as deterrence, community protection and rehabilitation.  See the case of Terrick[7].  Our backgrounds, of course, leave their mark and yours no doubt has. It probably does explain the faltering trajectory of your life and in your case the development of the anti-social personality disorder spoken of in the expert report.  

[7]DPP v Terrick [2009] VSCA 220

60I do not believe that the reduction in moral culpability is substantial in this case.  

61You are now 54 years of age.  You have been committing sexual offences for over 30 years. Time and time again you have been given opportunities to obtain treatment. Time and time again no doubt you have been told to desist from the use of substances which disinhibit you and which have a role to play - you just choose not to. Time and time again steps have been taken by courts in an endeavour to foster your rehabilitation and to lead you away from crime.  Time and time again you just continue to reoffend. This was really serious offending that I am dealing with.  There are limits to the application of these Bugmy principles. I apply them to my task. I have said that I do, and I do, and I do take into account your background as far as I am able to.

The report of Mr Newton

62I want to turn now to the report of Mr Newton. I do not see any particular purpose in inserting large slabs from that report into my reasons. I have read it. I do take it into account.  It is not a helpful report for you. It has assisted me in terms of some of the personal background that I have taken into account in pronouncing my finding in favour of the Bugmy submission. 

63Mr Newton is an experienced psychologist and one who has seen you on two occasions by video link.  He had information not just from you but also other reports, and also the sentencing remarks of Judge Barnett.  Drug use and alcohol use have been a pervasive part of your life, you told him that. You said it underpinned some of the impulsive sexual behaviour in the past.  Well, Judge Barnett was speaking of that close to 20 years ago. You have but rudimentary insight into disinhibition. You seemingly express no desire to alter your approach to drugs or alcohol. The substance related issues very much elevate your risk upon return to the community. Mr Newton tells me this.  It markedly increases your risk of violent or sexual offending (see paragraph 38).  Mr Newton worked his way through your extensive criminal history. He took your background to the present offending at paragraphs 45 to 47. 

64You described being placed in a difficult position with your ex-wife pressuring her parents to evict you and you sensing an inability to find anywhere else to stay.  You describe going to the Salvos but having no luck owing to your prior criminal history which you disclosed.  You told Mr Newton that in response, you thought:  'Ok if I’m a sex offender, then I’ll just be who I am. I figured at least if I committed another offence I would go back to gaol, and I’d have a roof over my head and a hot meal. I was in a bad place, I was stoned and not thinking too clearly'.  That is what you said to Mr Newton, and I pondered out aloud on the plea and in discussions with your counsel whether that motivation, if it truly existed, would really be a matter in mitigation at all or whether it would in fact be a matter in aggravation. It seemed likely that the latter would apply, that it would surely be a matter in aggravation. To think of utilising a totally innocent child and committing a sexual offence targeting a totally innocent child as a device to get a roof over one’s head and a hot meal, is almost unthinkable for anyone who walks on this planet.  It would surely represent one of the most dire motives one could ever contemplate. I would view it as a matter in aggravation, undoubtedly, given all the other options one could take to offend and bring about that same outcome and without committing a serious crime upon a child, or a sexual crime at all. Of course, it was not your motivation here at all.

65What you told Mr Newton was in part the truth; you may have felt some pressure from you wife, you may have felt under threat in terms of potentially losing the accommodation option with your in-laws, but you still had a roof over your head. It had not been lost.  Your statement that 'I’ll just be who I am', well that is plainly what you were on the day a sex offender affected by drugs. You were, as has often been the case, disinhibited by drugs. That is not mitigatory at all.

66You offended on this day, as you have in the past, with a mixture of deviant sexual attraction, impulsivity and disinhibition.  If you wanted merely to get a roof over your head, well there was no need to commit a sexual assault on this child, or any child for that matter. Not even a need to assault a child or even an adult. You could ride your bike to the police station and pitch it through their window or kick in a shopfront window or steal from a supermarket and simply await your arrest.  But that was not your charter at all. If it is, why did you leave? Why did you leave the scene? Why would you have taken such interest in providing mostly a 'no comment' interview when arrested and interviewed by the police? Why were you arguing the toss with the police over the strength of the case despite your blurting out at one point your admission? I know this was a few days later, but why were you spelling out your desire to be released from police custody, as you plainly did on the day of that interview, at Questions 202 to 204? Finally, why did you not advance this reason, this motivation, at the time of the interview.  I am actually satisfied it was not your reason for offending, and you should be grateful that I am not satisfied that it was your motivation.  As I say, if I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that was your motivation, it would be a matter of significant aggravation.  On this day you were doing what you have done before: offending sexually and hoping to get away with it.

67You have an anti-social personality disorder.  I am returning back to Mr Newton's report. You have disordered sexual adjustment and there is evidence of sexual deviance. You have a persisting deficit in the area of victim empathy. See paragraph 51.  You have hebephilic attraction patterns and exhibitionist fantasies. Your empathy for victims of sexual crime, including your own, is superficial. See paragraph 53.  Despite being engaged in the past in several episodes of sex offender treatment you had little to show for it.  See paragraph 54.  

68There were limitations in your discussing the offending behaviour which made it hard for Mr Newton to reach a conclusive diagnosis, but he said it is clear that you experience sexual deviance encompassing exhibitionist, hebephilic and paedophilic pathology, that you are likely to meet the criteria for a paedophilic disorder, non-exclusive, sexually attracted to females as well as the criteria for exhibitionist disorder.

69Those things are presently ‘contained’, he said. They are ‘contained’ by your being incarcerated. They are not in remission, and he says these things produce a significantly increased risk of recidivism. 

70The risk assessments are set out within the report, I am not going to go through all of them. You are a high risk, well above the average risk on the STATIC-99, and you have a wide range of risk factors across all the domains on the RSVP-V2.  So, there is a high risk of further sexual offending.  He says words to this effect:  'suffice to say the most severely problematic risk factors are his', this is your, 'deviant attraction to underage women, his offence supporting cognition, his entrenched interpersonal inadequacy and his failure to benefit not only from treatment but also from the deterrent aspects of, and extended periods of incarceration, and past conditional sentences.'  (See paragraph 14, p17). You are judged by him to have a poor outlook for further treatment. It is Mr Newton who speaks repeatedly of containment. As to the effects of disinhibition, Mr Newton says those effects are well understood by you. He went on to say that in light of your failure to benefit from extensive past treatment and structured rehabilitative support, the focus in your case would almost inevitably need to turn to community protection and containment of the significant risk you pose. Your risk, he says, is well above the level of risk posed by a typical sex offender undergoing sentence.

71It is not an optimistic report. I have seldom, if ever, seen a gloomier one from that author. It does not hint at much, if any, hope for the future. I take that report into account.

Guilty Plea

72I turn now then to some of the other matters raised on your behalf, the first being the fact of some cooperation with the police, but far more significantly, your early guilty plea. Your level of cooperation was not, it seemed to me, the strongest point on the plea. Your guilty plea and the stage of that plea was. As to your cooperation, well you chose to 'no comment' for a large portion of the interview, as was your right. You did make the telling admissions that I spoke of earlier but really no sooner had they been made that you sought perhaps to distance yourself from them then falling into this strange notion of challenging the strength of the case against you. It really was quite a bizarre interview.  I do not ignore your level of cooperation or the fact that admissions were made by you. Far more significantly though, you then pleaded guilty, and you did that at the earliest stage.  That is important.

73You have facilitated the course of justice. You have taken that earliest responsibility for your crime - many do not. The community has accordingly been saved all of the time and the cost and the effort associated with a committal hearing being conducted in the Magistrates Court or a trial being conducted up in this court. Witnesses have not been required to give evidence in either court. That is always of importance.  It is especially important in a case such as this where there would have been child witnesses including your direct victim and her sister.  The experience of giving evidence is never easy, even for an adult witness, and that is so despite all the steps that we have taken to try to make giving evidence less traumatic. Well, your 10-year-old victim and her teenage sister, and their mother and perhaps even grandmother, have not needed to give evidence or really even contemplate that possibility. The matter settled very swiftly.  There is a utilitarian benefit in pleading guilty in the way that you have. I take into account your cooperation, the admissions that you made, and the early guilty plea, and I am required as a matter of law to pass a lesser sentence owing to those various factors.

Remorse

74I turn to the issue of remorse. I dealt with this earlier in these reasons. I asked Ms McGarvie about it as it was not mentioned in the comprehensive written submissions in the places one might have expected to see it mentioned, if it was being relied upon - for instance, at paragraph 8 of those outlines.  When I asked her, she pointed without any great enthusiasm to the fact of your guilty plea and what you had told Mr Newton at paragraphs 46 and 47. A guilty plea can be, but is not always, indicative of at least some level of remorse. The case against you was an overwhelming one. That fact does not in any way detract from the value afforded to your guilty plea. I have been speaking of the allowances that I have made in relation to your guilty plea and the stage of that plea, and they are in no way dependent on whether or not I can find the presence of remorse. I do not confuse the two matters.  But in the face of such a strong case as this, what can actually be inferred from your guilty plea. You were stuck with your admission, and you were stuck with the other material leading to your identification including the DNA evidence with some astronomical likelihood ratio in the billions.

75I have the explanation you have provided to Mr Newton for the offending, an explanation I do not accept as truthful. I also have Mr Newton’s statements as to your lack of victim empathy. Ms McGarvie pointed to paragraphs 46 and 47 but really not with any great enthusiasm or appetite. Those statements by you, they link into the earlier statement made to Mr Newton as to the reasons why you offended. Even if your expressed motivation for offending was true, that is to get a roof over your head and a hot meal, and I do not accept that it was, the words in paragraphs  46 and 47 would hardly convey any real remorse - you said this:  'I didn’t want to hurt her but I understand now that I probably traumatised her and I scared the crap out of her, but I didn’t beat her up so it could have been worse'.

76I am not satisfied there is any genuine remorse in this case. That is not a matter in aggravation, I am just not satisfied as to the existence of a matter in mitigation. It may very well be that your deviant tendencies and traits and the things spoken of in the report of Newton make it very difficult for you to feel empathy.

Increased burden.

77Your counsel relied upon an increased custodial burden and that was predominantly arising from the chronic pain management issues connected to your burns. You are in pain even when taking the appropriate medication, which you can at least do when you are out in the community. You are not able to continue taking much of that medication in prison given the strength of it. That was really the major issue relied upon. Far less weight was placed on the jaw injury, and I can reach no finding that the jaw will provide any long terms issues at all. I am prepared to accept that you were assaulted and even that there was a fracture of some kind and hence some pain proximate to the assault, but beyond that there is just no material placed before me. As to the pain management issue and your burns, I do accept that that poses an increased custodial burden to you, and I do take that into account.

Rehabilitation

78I turn then to your prospects of rehabilitation. The Crown argued that they were completely extinguished in this case, that you had no prospects of rehabilitation. Zero. Your counsel argued that I should be ‘guarded.’ ‘Guarded' is really not the right word in this setting, conveying as it does, at least my understanding of the word, having some caution or some possible reservations. That is not my state of mind here. Everything before me suggests that you have virtually no prospects of ever changing. You pose a really high risk of sexual re-offending. You are not in remission. You are contained, contained by the environment you are in – prison. You are virtually insightless as to drug and alcohol use and the impact of substance use upon your inhibitions. That is a poor base. On top of that we have the deviant sexual attraction, however that may be labelled or badged up. You have offence supportive mindsets. You have virtually no empathy for a victim of a sexual offence, even your own offence.  Time and time again you sexually offend. Time and time again courts deal with you for offending covering a range of crimes and settings. Often enough there has been a vulnerable victim as there was here. Being sent to prison for nine years did not curb your offending, nor has counselling or treatment or being subject to reporting obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act, or the prohibition order being made under that same Act. You have breached countless court orders. How hard is it to understand you must not contact a child? It is a very simple thing as a proposition, but you cannot or will not comply. This offence (Charge 2 in particular) displays your high level of dangerousness. Sitting down by that rail trail on this day, for what reason? Even accepting that there might possibly have been an innocent reason for sitting there, a girl comes in your direction along the path, a child, someone you know you must not go near, and your response is to spring into action. You simply cannot or will not control your conduct. ‘

79What a miracle it was that your young victim actually fought you off. Many might not have and then what?

80I accept there have been periods where you have been in the community and had employment and been living independently, that was really what Ms McGarvie was ‘hanging her hat’ on in suggesting that you had some prospects.  There were some periods where you have been offence free - they are few and far between. She spoke of your not being in custody for a significant period in the lead into this offending, and that is true, but you had still been offending. You have very little by way of support and seemingly no real desire to change. No desire and no real capacity to change. The expert report speaks of containment of risk. You seemingly cannot live in the community without offending sexually.

81I am not prepared though to find that you have no prospects of rehabilitation at all, I find that you have virtually no prospects of rehabilitation and an unusually high risk of sexually offending upon your release, whenever that may be.  

The Offences

82I turn then to the offences, but I see no need to restate all the facts. Your own counsel described the offending as very serious - it was. She acknowledged there were a number of aggravating features here, but also some lacking. Plainly this offence can target a child of any age as long as they are under the age of 16. So there could be a much younger child or for that matter a much older one. Your victim was a nine-year-old primary school student. She was in her uniform. A young girl, and obviously so. A child. She was walking alone, home from school, as she should have been able to.  She was vulnerable given her age and the setting. A number of the other matters spelt out in paragraph 5 of the outline are matters of aggravation that are absent, that is to say well there were no weapons that were employed, or no group offending or no injury or no premeditation, and limited planning. No doubt these things were absent.  I am not prepared to find that you have ridden there and sat on the seat and lay in wait for a child on this day. Maybe you did, but I cannot be satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt.

83There was not much by way of planning, obviously enough. You were sitting on the bench, the child came along, and you acted. As to there being no significant violence or threats, well of course the act itself involved a level of violence and that was to bring about the sexual act that you hoped to achieve. You grabbed her and pushed her into the bushes and pulled her to the ground. That was obviously violent, but I take Ms McGarvie to be saying there was no violence over and above that which was necessary to effect the purpose, nothing by way of extravagant violence, and that is true.

84The brief nature of the event, well, that was more a matter of good luck. You happened to select a young girl who had the courage and the wherewithal to scream and fight you off and to kick you where it hurt.  She escaped, but plainly, as brief as this interaction was, as brief as the offence was, it ended not of your choosing, it did not have you decide to desist, and as brief as it was, it has deeply affected her. The brevity of the offence does not translate into minimal impact, not at all. Very many sexual offences are very brief indeed.  The impact regrettably persists long after the act, and that plainly is the position here. 

85The absence of some features of aggravation says nothing really as to the seriousness of an offence, whereas here, there are of course a number of features of aggravation that are present.  

86The offence of abduction and detention of a child for sexual purposes contemplates an intention to commit one of the many sexual acts covered by the relevant sections of the Crimes Act. It could be constituted by an intent to touch someone on the breast or the backside over their clothes. That was not the nature of your intended act. You had already pulled your pants and underpants down, you then grabbed her from behind, pushed her off the path and pulled her down on top of you. How might this have played out had she been more compliant?  Thankfully, we will never know. But it was not you choosing to desist. I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to sexually penetrate her, it seems likely, but I cannot be sure of that. But plainly enough you were out to derive some sexual gratification from the enforced act. It was in my view a very serious example of what is an inherently serious crime.  There was a prohibition upon your having any contact with a child. That was a particular condition of the prohibition order. You deliberately breached it. It was just meaningless to you.  So Charge 1, the breach of the prohibition order, is likewise a serious instance of that offence.

87A few days later you had the child abuse material on your phone.  It was accepted that that sort of conduct is inherently serious. I see no need to wade my way through the many past utterances in our Court of Appeal or superior courts from other States around the land setting out some of those principles for the sentencing of someone for possession of child abuse material. There are many factors which must be taken into account by a court including but not limited to the nature and the content of the material, the ages and the number of children, the gravity of the activity depicted, the number of items or images possessed or transmitted, and whether it was for the purposes of sale or distribution, whether there was any profit motive in play.  This is not by any means an exhaustive list.

88General deterrence is of paramount consideration in this area. Possessing this material is not a victimless crime. Each child in each image is themselves a victim. I accept your counsel's submission that here we have a very small quantity of images, that they were not for the purpose of sale or distribution, there is no material suggesting they were shared or were going to be shared in any way or distributed in any way.

89You fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender in relation to Charges 2 and 3. They are ‘relevant offences’ and you have many past triggering matters.  It follows that the protection of the community is the principal purpose of sentence on those matters. It would be irrespective of those provisions. Secondly, a Court has a power in that case to impose what is described as a disproportionate sentence, so one that is not proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and that is to achieve the protection of the community. I will not do that here. I will not impose a disproportionate sentence.  The other ramifications are that the presumption of concurrency is removed. I have instead the presumption of cumulation, and whilst this provision modifies the principle of totality, totality is plainly still of importance in this case.

90Let me deal then with some of the purposes of sentencing.

Purposes

91I have to consider a number of purposes of sentencing. Rehabilitation is one such purpose. Often it is a very important purpose. Often it has to be given great weight.  Even if you had decent prospects of rehabilitation, that purpose would surrender sizeable ground to the other sentencing purposes.  But you have virtually no prospects of rehabilitation.

92I am required to punish you justly and proportionately. Punishment is obviously an important sentencing purpose.

93I have to also denounce your conduct. Of course that is important, I do strongly denounce your conduct. You should be ashamed of committing this conduct in relation to this young child.  You are not and that is more a product of your warped mindset as spoken of in Newton’s report.

94Community protection is of obvious importance here. Indeed, it is the paramount sentencing purpose for Charges 2 and 3. There are some cases where the serious offender provisions apply where there is that paramountcy of community protection as spelt out in the relevant provisions and yet the assessment that a court is still required to perform might ultimately lead to the conclusion of there being a very low risk. That is sometimes the position.  That is not the position here at all.  You are a dangerous individual. That danger has manifested itself over 30 years and it surfaced again out on that rail trail on this day when a little girl came into your orbit, and you struck.  You have a high risk of reoffending in a sexual fashion in the future. Given the nature of some of these crimes, particularly Charge 2, this is the abduction or detention for sexual purposes, and given your past history before the courts, I must protect the community from you.  It looms very large in my sentencing task and that is surely obvious, even to you. 

95You are a real menace to the community.  The community must be protected from you.  However, it is fundamental that a sentence must be proportionate to the crime and that a disproportionate sentence may not be imposed to extend the period of protection of society from the risk of recidivism on the part of an offender.  An extension of a sentence merely by way of preventative detention is not permissible.  The principle of proportionality precludes that style of approach.  However, the exercise of my sentencing discretion, having regard to the protection of the community, amongst other factors, is perfectly permissible.  That is because protection of the community is relevant to the fixing of the appropriate term - see the case of Veen (No.2)[8], a decision of our High Court.

[8]Veen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14

96I have here the need for deterrence. Deterrence looms large in this case. I must try to deter you as well as others from offending in the future.

97Specific deterrence relates to the need to deter you. It is a significant purpose of sentencing. Courts have tried now on multiple occasions to deter you from offending or to contain you. Those efforts have failed. I will try again. I will try again to drive home the message to you, a message that simply has not filtered through.  Get it into your head. You must not sexually offend against any other person.  You must comply with your obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act or a prohibition order made under that Act.  You must not possess child abuse material. You must not be near children. If you do these things, what you must expect is condign punishment when you offend.

98You have exhausted any claim for leniency.

99General deterrence is also of real importance, that is the need for me to deter other people.  I try to deter you in the future, but I try also to deter future like-minded people from offending in the future.

100The courts through the sentences imposed seek to deter future like‑minded offenders from committing crimes such as yours. We want people to reflect and reconsider and alter their ways. To make a choice not to offend. To choose instead, for instance, to honour and comply with a prohibition order.  

101Sexual offences against children are inherently serious. This conduct in detaining a child for sexual purposes is a really serious offence. Other like-minded potential offenders really must be left in no doubt as to the likely outcome, should they transgress in the way that you did. That there will simply be zero tolerance in relation to a person who chooses to abduct or detain a child for sexual purposes.

102The need for general deterrence is very plain.

103I have to pay regard to current sentencing practices. That is not a single controlling factor.  

104I have looked at the relevant portions of the Judicial College of Victoria Sentencing Manual Case Summaries. There are every few examples of the abduction offence and none that I can find relating to the breach of a prohibition order.

105I have looked also at some statistical data. There is no data for the abduction offence on the Sentencing Advisory Council portal, nor any data in that same portal for the breach of a prohibition order offence dealt with in the County Court. There is some data that comes out of the Magistrates Court.  There of course is some data in relation to the possession of the child abuse material.

106Statistical material is of very limited value, if any at all. I am not passing sentence as a statistician. What I am doing is exercising a sentencing discretion. Statistical data, even if it exists, has no detail as to the matters in aggravation or mitigation.  

107As to the abduction matter that I am dealing with, it is quite a rare offence, thankfully. The parties could find no comparable cases.

108I take into account the submissions made by your counsel and those made by the prosecution. I do take into account all of the written material that has been filed in the course of the plea.

109Prison is a disposition of last resort. Of course it is. Your counsel conceded the inevitability of a substantial prison sentence, one obviously requiring the fixing of a non-parole period. Plainly that concession was well made.  

110She urged me to fix a non-parole period.  I have decided that I will.  When I stand back, as I have since the plea and re-read the materials, as long as your criminal history may be, there have only been a couple of occasions where you have been given a non-parole period.  As troubling as the risk assessment is and as bleak as your prospects of rehabilitation are, I am not satisfied that the nature of the offence or the nature of your past history makes the fixing of a non-parole period inappropriate. It is a very rare exercise of the sentencing discretion not to fix a non-parole period. I will fix one.

111I can make no assumptions as to whether you will be released on parole or not. I am required by law then to fix a non-parole period. It will be the Adult Parole Board who will make the decision as to whether you can be released. They will have a better sense ‘then’ as to the level of risk and ‘then’ is many years from now.  That decision has nothing to do with me.  For the reasons discussed in the course of the plea, there will not be a large gap between the head sentence and the non-parole period in this case.

Totality

112I take into account the principle of totality of sentence. It is modified by the serious offender provisions but is still very much operative here. Unless I otherwise direct, every sentence would run consecutively and plainly that would infringe that principle.

113I must consider whether the effect of the sentences is just and appropriate and commensurate with your overall criminality. Your criminality here was high. The most serious offence is obviously the abduction or detention of a child for sexual purposes.  It has a 10-year maximum term.  The immediate prelude to that was the approach and the initial contact with the child in breach of the prohibition order, that is the order made under the Sex Offenders Registration Act. There is that very strong unity of conduct here which spells out the strong need for me to avoid double punishment and the need for a very sizeable measure of concurrency.  The final charge, the possession of child abuse material charge, is of course disconnected from the others by way of timing and content. It is you possessing what you possessed on that day.

114I have engaged in a last look at the overall effect of the sentences imposed by this court, and I have done that to guard against the imposition of a crushing term upon you. Plainly, a very sizeable prison term is completely unavoidable in the circumstances of this case.

115I will get you to stand up please.

Sentence

116Charge 1 is the charge of contravening the prohibition order.  I convict and sentence you to two years' imprisonment.

117Charge 2 relates to the abduction or detention of a child under the age of 16 for sexual purposes.  I convict and sentence you to seven years' imprisonment. That is the base sentence.

118On Charge 3, possession of child abuse material, I convict and sentence you to two years' imprisonment.

119The base sentence is therefore the seven years that I have imposed on Charge 2. Now you have been sentenced by me on Charges 2 and 3 as a serious sexual offender and that is to be noted in the records of the court.  I have said that the presumption of concurrency is swept aside - see s6E.  Because of that I need to ‘otherwise direct’ the degree of concurrency.  That is so, but it is easier for you and others to understand if I pronounce the extent of cumulation which then discloses the extent to which I otherwise order concurrency.  Further, in this case of course, there is an awkwardness in those provisions because Charge 2 is the most serious of the crimes and is the base sentence in any event.

Cumulation

120What I will do is this:  I will direct that six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and nine months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 is to be served cumulatively, that is on top of that base sentence, and upon each other, and these orders produce cumulation of 15 months on top of the seven year base sentence.

Total effective sentence

121Those orders then produce a total effective sentence of eight years and three months' imprisonment.

Non-parole period

122I fix a period of seven and a half years during which you will not be eligible for release on parole.

Section 18 pre-sentence detention

123You have already served 259 days of this sentence by way of pre-sentence detention and that declaration is to be entered into the records of the court.

Section 6AAA

124I have taken into account your guilty plea. If you had pleaded not guilty and been found guilty of these offences, I would have sentenced you to a period of 10 years' imprisonment. I would have fixed a non-parole period in that setting of nine years. That declaration is to be entered into the records of the court.

125Grab a seat if you would please.

Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004

126I have to tell you now about what is a ‘new’ obligation under the Sex Offenders Registration Act.  I say 'new', the fact is it is the same as your existing obligation, that is reporting for life under those provisions.  However, you have been sentenced by me today in relation to two Category 2 offences.  Yet again this invokes a lifetime obligation to report under those provisions.  You only have one life, you already have lifetime obligations, but I believe I have to serve these materials again.  So, I am going to have handed to you in a moment a lengthy document. You have seen one before, at least on one occasion, probably more. it explains all of your obligations under that Act.  It details your reporting obligations, obligations that you have avoided or ignored in the past.  There are lots of other things spelt out including the things you must not do and the things you must do.  There are prohibitions upon gaining any employment in any child-related activity.  There are requirements to report any communication or contact with any child.  It would take me a lengthy time to work my way through all the obligations chapter and verse, I do not need to. That is not my purpose.  You will need again to familiarise yourself with these conditions and then comply of course when ultimately you are released.  What I am going to do is I am going to have you sign a form, and that is purely to acknowledge yet again that you have received these materials, and then you will need to familiarise yourself with them and comply when those obligations arise.  They will not for many years. You will be in custody for many years.

127Mr Paull, you have seen these documents before, they are very detailed, he has seen them before as well.

128MR PAULL:  Yes, Your Honour. 

129HIS HONOUR:  He's not going to sit down there and read them now, it's not my expectation, I'm just giving him notification of his obligations and I'll have him simply acknowledge receipt of the document.  So perhaps you can go down with my associate.  We'll have that done now if we would.  Thank you.  I understand that's been signed.  Let me just see if there's anything else that needs to be done.  Any other matters then from you, Mr McKenry?

130MR McKENRY:  No there's not, Your Honour.

131HIS HONOUR:  Any matters from you, Mr Paull?

132MR PAULL:  No, Your Honour. 

133HIS HONOUR:  I will revise these reasons when they come back from the transcribers.  I do that generally pretty efficiently, on the day that I get them generally, and when I get them, only time will tell, but I will revise them and give them to the parties in due course.  I am assuming you will speak to your client, whether it be today or some other time, you will speak to him about what's happened here today and his rights in relation to the sentence, will you.

134MR PAULL:  I will, Your Honour.

135HIS HONOUR:  Yes, all right, thank you.  There is no need for me to make any sort of custody management directions or anything like that, he's been - - - 

136MR PAULL:  No, Your Honour - - - 

137HIS HONOUR:  He's coming in a custodial setting.  Well that completes the matter then, Mr Lewis.  So your legal team will be out to have a chat to you no doubt to discuss your rights in relation to what's occurred here today, to take you through what's happened, and also your rights in relation to the sentence that I have imposed.  So Mr Lewis can be removed now please.  I have signed that order then. 

- - -