Director of Public Prosecutions v Long (a pseudonym)
[2024] VCC 311
•21 February 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-23-01425
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PAUL LONG (a pseudonym) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE D. SEXTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 8 February 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 February 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Long (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 311 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sexual Penetration of a Child or Lineal Descendant; Rolled Up Charges
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004; Crimes Act 1958
Cases Cited:Carter v The Queen [2018] VSCA 88; R v RLP [2009] VSCA 271; Fichtner v The Queen [2019] VSCA 297; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgleish (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR
Sentence: Seven Years and Nine Months Imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr D. O'Doherty | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms J. Munster | Martin Middleton Oates Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Paul Long,[1] on 8 November 2023 you pleaded guilty before me in relation to an indictment containing two charges – a rolled-up charge of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant, which incorporated a single act of digital/vaginal penetration and two acts of penile/vaginal penetration, and one charge of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant, in relation to a single act of digital/vaginal penetration.
[1] A pseudonym.
2The maximum penalty for the charge of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant is 25 years' imprisonment. The source of this offence, s50C, ss(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), is located within Part 8C of Division 1 of Part 1 of the Crimes Act 1958, which contains various incest offences.
3At your arraignment before me on 8 November 2023, you also admitted your criminal record.
Circumstances of offending
4The circumstances of your offending were set out in the summary of prosecution opening on plea dated 12 October 2023, Exhibit 1 at your plea hearing. As confirmed by your then counsel, that document contained an agreed factual outline of your offending.
5Your offending can now be briefly summarised.
6Your victim in this matter, Michelle Robinson,[2] is your biological granddaughter. She was 19 years of age at the time of your offending against her. Included in your admitted criminal history is a prior conviction from the Griffith Local Court in New South Wales on 27 July 2016, where you received a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight months, with regards to the offences of grooming a child under 14 years for unlawful sexual activity, and indecent assault of a person under 16 years of age. That offending was also committed upon your granddaughter Michelle, who was then just 12 to 13 years of age. The details of your prior offending with regard to Michelle were set out at paragraphs 4 to 12 of the summary of prosecution opening on plea. As set out in those paragraphs, over a three-month period leading up to 27 January 2016, you were involved in sexually explicit telephone, text message, Facebook and face to face communications with your granddaughter Michelle and you passionately kissed your 12 to 13 year old granddaughter on the lips at your residence. The numerous messages and communications sent by you to Michelle were for the purpose of encouraging, procuring and grooming her to engage in sexual intercourse.
[2] A pseudonym. Please be advised that the publication of anything likely to identify a victim in a case involving sexual offences is prohibited by an Act of Parliament. Pseudonyms are used in these sentencing remarks to protect the identity of the victim.
7As a result of this prior offending, Michelle had an estranged relationship with you, until the first half of 2022, a period of some six years, when she re-engaged with you and her grandmother Bonny Perry,[3] spending her nineteenth birthday with you both in New South Wales, where you both resided.
[3] A pseudonym.
8At the time of your current offending, you were 74 years of age and residing at the property in New South Wales with your partner Ms Perry, who relocated to a caravan on that property and later to a caravan park near Swan Hill during your offending. Following her nineteenth birthday, in April 2022, Michelle started spending time at your residence and slept there overnight on occasion. Initially she slept in a spare bedroom, but once her grandmother left the residence you told her to sleep in bed with you.
9Towards the end of April 2022, Michelle lived with her then partner at a rental property in Victoria, but would on occasions as I have described, sleep at your place. You apparently assisted Michelle and her partner moving into this property in April 2022. Sometime after moving in, you started visiting this address while Michelle’s partner was at work. Charge 1 on the indictment relates to your sexual offending against your granddaughter at this address. On or about 22 April 2022, you engaged in acts of digital and penile vaginal penetration of your granddaughter Michelle. On one occasion on or about this date, you drove to the Michelle’s address and asked your granddaughter 'do you want to go have sex cos I'm horny' to which she responded 'whatever'. Michelle then gave you a Viagra tablet and you both went to the bedroom where you got undressed and lay on the bed. You then kissed Michelle and digitally penetrated her vagina, this being the first act of sexual penetration rolled-up in Charge 1. You then told Michelle to get on top of you and she did as she was told. You then penetrated Michelle’s vagina with your penis, this being the second act of sexual penetration rolled-up in Charge 1. On a separate occasion on or about the same date, you sexually penetrated Michelle’s vagina with your penis, this being the third act of sexual penetration rolled-up in Charge 1.
10Shortly after this date, Michelle started going to your residence in New South Wales, and allegations of sexual intercourse between the two of you post-dating 22 April 2022 are as I understand it the subject of legal proceedings in the New South Wales jurisdiction.
11On a subsequent occasion, some months later, between 16 and 17 July 2022, you and Michelle drove to Bendigo in your motor vehicle, where you both stayed at a room at the Bendigo Motor Inn for one night before returning home the following day. Your digital penetration of your granddaughter's vagina whilst at the Bendigo Motor Inn forms the basis of Charge 2 on the indictment. After unsuccessfully attempting to penetrate Michelle’s vagina with your penis, whilst laying down on the bed you began touching her on the vagina and breast. You then rubbed Michelle’s vagina with your fingers and introduced your finger into her vagina.
12At times during your offending, you sent your granddaughter 'dirty talk' messages. You also bought her a new mobile phone and a white Ford Focus worth $13,000. Throughout the offending, you told your granddaughter that because she had consented to it all, if she opened her mouth then she would go to gaol too and 'would not have her kid no more' to use the words of Michelle.
13On 13 September 2022, Michelle attended at the Swan Hill Police Station with her mother and participated in a VARE. During that recording, Michelle told police that she was pregnant. In the context of describing the sexual offending, Michelle told police that you assured her that 'plenty of people around the world do it, like, it's completely normal, you got nothing to worry about', and that 'you loved her', and that you indicated 'no-one else needs to know what we do, that's our business, nobody else's'. During her interview with police, Michelle also indicated that you suffer from erectile dysfunction, and commenced taking Viagra to facilitate your penetration of her vagina with your penis. She also referred to her belief that you were the father of her unborn child. This fact was subsequently confirmed through DNA analysis, following a termination of the pregnancy on 1 December 2022.
14Following the VARE interview, Michelle conducted a pretext phone call with you regarding her pregnancy and what to do about it. Excerpts of that phone conversation were set out at paragraph 38 of the summary of prosecution opening on plea. Suffice to say, in that phone conversation you displayed a concerning lack of insight in relation to your serious sexual offending against your granddaughter, and repeatedly indicated to her that she should have said no to the sexual activity.
15Sometime after Michelle reported this matter to police, on 26 September 2022 you attended at the Swan Hill Police Station, telling police that you 'didn't know it was an offence', and that you 'just thought it was a sin against God'. In a subsequent police interview that day, you denied all allegations, and referred to your granddaughter as a 'manipulating bloody little bitch of a thing' and you referred to her as a 'thieving little bitch' who had stolen about $8,000 from you.
Impact of your offending on your granddaughter
16The Sentencing Act 1991 requires me to have regard to the impact of your offending on your victim.[4] In this case, whilst I understand that Michelle was offered the opportunity to complete a Victim Impact Statement, she declined to do so. Notwithstanding the fact that she, at age 19, is older than many of the incest victims seen in this court, and notwithstanding the complex relationship dynamics between you and your granddaughter, as evidenced through the mutual communications and indeed the pretext conversation between you, the fact is that your granddaughter was sexually exploited by you, a man who had previously sexually offended against her when she was just 12 to 13 years of age.
[4]S(5) ss(2) (DAA)
17The presumed harm acknowledged with regard to child victims of incest offending has application here, notwithstanding the age of your victim and the complex relationship dynamics to which I have referred, albeit in a more nuanced manner. Furthermore, in this case your granddaughter suffered real harm. As a result of your sexual offending, she fell pregnant, and on 1 December 2022 endured a termination procedure at The Royal Women's Hospital, with the product of conception being seized for forensic testing. As conceded by your counsel, these consequences of your sexual offending would have caused distress to your granddaughter.
Nature and gravity of your offending and level of culpability
18The gravity of the crime of incest is of course reflected in the statutory maximum penalty, 25 years' imprisonment. That maximum penalty reflects the community's abhorrence of such behaviour. Whilst your conduct does not represent the most serious example of incest, it nevertheless must be seen as extremely serious offending. You are the grandfather of your victim, a biological relationship which, by its very nature, carries with it a critical component of trust. Through your sexual debasement of your young granddaughter, you breached that trust. In the sentencing exercise, every case is necessarily fact specific, however, for the sake of clarity I do not accept an argument initially made on your behalf that there was an absence in this case of a breach of trust.
19In incest cases, the age of the victim is recognised as an often important indicia with regard to the seriousness of the offending. In your case, it is accepted that your victim was 19 years old at the time of your conduct, and not therefore a child as is often seen in these cases. However, she was essentially a young person, a teenager, and having regard to the various communications between you, seemingly an immature young person. Your conduct was not isolated. You have pleaded guilty to three acts of sexual penetration on or about 22 April 2022, and a subsequent act of digital sexual penetration some three months later, between 16 and 17 July 2022. Your conduct in sexually penetrating the vagina of your granddaughter with your penis resulted in a pregnancy and subsequent termination. This in my view represents an extremely aggravating feature of your offending. Furthermore, your conduct in informing your granddaughter that because she had consented to the behaviour, any disclosure on her part would result in her going to gaol and not having her child with her also represents a feature of aggravation. These entreaties on your part, which occurred during the offending, reveal an appreciation by you of the gravity of your wrongdoing, and desire to avoid detection.
20
Your counsel did not submit that your moral culpability for your offending was reduced due to any mental impairment, disability, or developmental disadvantage. As I have indicated, you have a prior conviction for sexual offending against your granddaughter when she was aged just 12 or 13. The sentence of imprisonment then imposed clearly did not deter you from again sexually exploiting your granddaughter some six years later. As conceded by your initial counsel,
Mr Collins, your prior conviction reveals a continuing sexual interest on your part which you willingly embarked on when your granddaughter reappeared in your life. That you would sexually offend in this manner, given your criminal history with regard to your granddaughter, very much elevates your moral culpability for the current offending, and increases the need for any penalty I now impose to reflect the sentencing purpose of specific deterrence.
21I accept overall that the comparatively advanced age of your granddaughter impacts upon an assessment as to the gravity of your offending and your culpability for it. Cases involving victims over the age of 16 are comparatively low in number in the higher courts, and as evidenced from some of the sentencing authorities relied upon by Mr Collins to an extent this represents a somewhat unusual example of this particular type of offending. However, for the reasons I have articulated, I regard your offending as representing a serious example of this particular crime, and I find your level of culpability to be high.
Personal circumstances
22You were born in October 1947, and you are now aged 76. At the time of your offending, you were 74.
23You were born in Swan Hill. You are the second youngest child in a family of eight children. Your father died when you were five years old, and as your older siblings were considerably older than you, your younger brother and yourself were subsequently raised by your mother. The course of your childhood, however, was apparently altered significantly when your mother re-partnered to a man who was apparently violent to yourself, and your mother.
24You have had a very limited education, not attending school beyond the age of eight. After leaving school, you taught yourself to read and write. You worked for your stepfather on horseback, handling stock until your stepfather died when you were 15 years old. You have subsequently completed a motor mechanic apprenticeship and have worked in that area for several years. You spent some time as an opal miner and then spent some 10 years manufacturing and selling charcoal and firewood. You are now semi-retired and in receipt of an aged pension.
25
You met your partner Ms Perry when you were 19 years old and married the next year. Together you have four children. Although you have reported previously that your marriage had ended, your partner has apparently reconciled with you, and until your remand in custody in November last year, you cohabitated with
Ms Perry but have not remarried.
26I have already referred to your New South Wales criminal history. You have prior matters dating back to the age of 19, and in the late 1960s and 1970s you have been dealt with in regard to dishonesty offences, receiving a short sentence of imprisonment in 1968 for stealing.
27You have denied any history of illicit drug use. Up until the months preceding your pleas of guilty to this matter, you had denied any history of contact with mental health services, reporting that you had never seen a general practitioner for treatment with regard to mental health difficulties. As at the date of your plea hearing before me, 8 November 2023, you had reported a history of hypertension, asthma, type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease, with stent surgery in the right coronary artery in 2002, and stent surgery in the left coronary artery in 2012. You then reported currently being medicated for hypertension and diabetes. On the day of your plea hearing, your then counsel, Mr Collins, indicated that there may be current issues with regard to the functioning of your heart, which was understandably causing you some anxiety. Nevertheless, you indicated a preparedness to proceed with your plea hearing on that day.
28At your plea hearing, a report from consultant forensic psychiatrist Dr Fiona Best dated 31 May 2023 was tendered by your counsel, Exhibit B. Your offending as I have described, occurred in April and July 2022. Following disclosures by your granddaughter, you were interviewed by police in September 2022. You were assessed by Dr Best on 2 May 2023. At that assessment, you reported to Dr Best six months of depressed mood, this time period post-dating the disclosure to police of your offending and you being interviewed by police for the offending. According to Dr Best, you then met the criteria for major depressive disorder, single episode, moderate, with melancholic features. You reported to Dr Best that you had not seen a general practitioner with regard to these symptoms, and Dr Best recommended that you see your general practitioner for consideration of antidepressant medication.
29
At your further plea hearing before me on 8 February 2024, your new counsel,
Ms Munster, indicated that you had in fact attended two appointments with a counsellor in Swan Hill in 2023. Whilst your solicitors had apparently been unable to obtain a report directly from the counsellor, I note reference in the patient health summary from the Swan Hill Primary Medical Centre (Exhibit D at your further plea hearing) to an active past history of low mood and depression emanating from a contact on 14 September 2023.
30You essentially, therefore, presented at your initial plea hearing before me on 8 November 2023, at the age of 76, as a man of advanced age with a number of physical ailments, and an understandable level of anxiety with regard to the current status of your cardiovascular functioning. I also accept that you were then suffering from a level of depression, noted by Dr Best and confirmed in medical documentation as dating from 2023, subsequent to your offending but in the context of these pending legal proceedings.
31You indicated to Dr Best that your previous term of imprisonment with regard to sexual offending against your granddaughter was difficult, with you being vulnerable in prison and being stood over by other inmates.[5] Nevertheless, you do not appear to be completely isolated, as evidenced by the attendance of your partner, Ms Perry, the grandmother of your victim, and your daughter, the mother of your victim, in court at your plea hearing on 8 November 2023 and I understand in attendance remotely today.
[5]Report from Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist Dr Fiona Best dated 31 May, 8.
32I was informed by Mr Collins at the initial plea hearing that they attended court in support of you, though no documentary or oral evidence was provided in this regard. Given the inevitable intra-family complexities as a result of your serious sexual offending against your granddaughter, other than noting their presence in court, it is difficult to make any finding with regard to the level of support provided by your family on an ongoing basis.
Applicable sentencing factors, purposes and principles
33In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I have had regard to the maximum penalty for your offending, the nature and gravity of your offending and your level of culpability for it, and your previous background. There are a number of mitigatory factors relevant to the sentencing exercise in your case.
34You pleaded guilty to the charges on the indictment, a matter of some significance in the sentencing discretion. Particularly given the nature of your offending, your plea of guilty entitles you to an enhanced utilitarian benefit, as your victim and other affected persons have been spared the extreme stress of a trial.[6] I was informed and accept that you indicated at an early stage in proceedings, at the committal mention stage, that you would enter pleas of guilty to the charges, and this early plea of guilty warrants a discount on sentencing. Through your pleas of guilty you have accepted responsibility for your offending and facilitated the course of justice. Your indication of a plea of guilty was given prior to the announcement by the Court that the COVID-19 backlog had been successfully dealt with, and in sentencing you, I will apply what is often referred to as the Worboyes discount – in recognition of the enhanced utilitarian benefit of a plea of guilty in the context of the Court experiencing unprecedented delays with regard to the listing of cases.
[6]Carter v The Queen [2018] VSCA 88 at paragraph 75
35Mr Collins submitted on your behalf that a further discount was warranted by virtue of your remorse, said to be demonstrated through your early plea of guilty. I have concluded, however, that little if any mitigatory benefit applies in this context. The report of psychiatrist, Dr Fiona Best, which I acknowledge was commissioned in the context of an assessment with regard to fitness to plead, is silent on the issue of remorse. As at 13 September 2022, the date of you pretext conversation with your granddaughter, you were dismissive of your granddaughter's concerns, and attempted to deflect responsibility for your serious sexual misconduct to her. Likewise, your police interview on 26 September 2022 is replete with denigrating references to your granddaughter, and a denial of all allegations. You have now pleaded guilty to serious sexual offending against your granddaughter, and I have already explained the basis upon which a mitigatory benefit applies. However, having considered the matter, there is an absence in my view of an evidentiary foundation for a further meaningful discount on the issue of remorse.
36
I turn now to a consideration of your advanced age and ill-health, and the impact on sentencing. As is now clear from the medical documentation tendered on your behalf at the further plea hearing before me on 8 February 2024, on 9 November 2023, the day after I remanded you in custody, you essentially suffered a heart attack whilst you were being held in the Mildura police cells. As a result of the myocardial infarction, you were taken from the police cells to the Mildura Base Hospital, where you were admitted and treated with medication. Two days later, on 11 November 2023, you were transferred by air ambulance to the Alfred Hospital in metropolitan Melbourne and, on 14 and 15 November 2023, you underwent cardiac angiograms with three stents being inserted. You were subsequently discharged from the Alfred Hospital on 16 November 2023 and returned to police custody. On discharge, you were referred for outpatient
follow-up with review in four to six weeks, with the plan for 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy and cardiac rehabilitation.
37On 17 November 2023, you were moved to the Metropolitan Remand Centre where you were noted as anxious but stable, with no acute psychological symptoms.
38Some weeks later, on 31 December 2023, you were briefly treated in the prison hospital following the calling of a code black, when you had reported feeling dizzy. On 12 January 2023, you were transferred to the Hopkins Correctional Centre where I note you are currently housed, where you underwent a mental and physical health assessment, and referrals were made to St Vincent's Hospital for various reviews, including cardiology and a sleep study.
39In your counsel, Ms Munster's most recent written submissions dated 8 February 2024,[7] your counsel indicated that your health conditions were being treated by medication and ongoing review and that you were currently stable. It was not suggested on your behalf that your conditions cannot be managed in custody. However, it was submitted that your health conditions are burdensome for you and, accordingly, are relevant to the sentencing exercise.
[7]Exhibit C
40Consistent with a long line of sentencing authorities, the principles applicable to the impact of advanced age and ill-health on sentencing are clear. The age and health of an offender are relevant to the exercise of the sentencing discretion. At the time of sentence you are 76 years of age and clearly in ill-health. It is reasonable to assume that you will spend the majority at least of your remaining years in prison given the sentence I will soon impose. Whilst old age or ill-health are not determinative of the quantum of any sentence, it is a weighty consideration that an offender in these circumstances is likely to spend the whole, or a very substantial portion, of the remainder of their life in prison.
41Other sentencing considerations may be required to surrender some ground to the need to exercise compassion to take account of the real prospect that an offender may not live to be released and that an offender’s ill-health will make his period of incarceration particularly onerous. Just punishment, proportionality and general and specific deterrence remain primary sentencing considerations in the sentencing disposition, notwithstanding the age and ill-health of an offender. Advanced age and ill-health do not justify the imposition of an unacceptably inappropriate sentence.[8]
[8]R v RLP [2009] VSCA 271 at [39], cited in Fichtner v The Queen [2019] VSCA 297 at [89]
42In your case, I am satisfied that a mitigatory allowance is warranted due to your advanced age in accordance with these principles. Furthermore, I am satisfied that your time in custody will represent a greater burden on you by reason of your ill-health, warranting a mitigatory allowance. Furthermore, given your documented history of depression dating from 2023, and based upon the opinion of Dr Best that a custodial sentence would likely weigh more heavily upon you than an individual without such a mental illness or condition, I am prepared to make a further mitigatory allowance with regard to Verdins’ principle 5. Nevertheless, your serious criminality must be denounced, and you must be justly punished for it.
43In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I have also taken into consideration the need to facilitate your rehabilitation to the extent appropriate. An assessment with regard to your prospects for rehabilitation is particularly difficult given the specific circumstances of your case. You are now of an advanced age. You have physical and psychological fragilities. You have pleaded guilty at an early stage, reflecting your acceptance of your wrongdoing. However, this was not the first time that you had sexually offended against your granddaughter, as evidenced by your relevant prior conviction. The most recent offending represents a significant escalation in your criminality, towards the same victim, some years later.
44Whilst I regard your rehabilitative prospects therefore as speculative, to the extent appropriate, I have taken into consideration the need to facilitate your rehabilitation when formulating both the head sentence and the non-parole eligibility component of the sentence I will shortly impose.
45In both written and oral submissions, your original counsel, Mr Collins, referred me to various previous sentencing decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeal on the issue of current sentencing practices. I have considered each of these decisions carefully, whilst bearing in mind that sentences of other courts are not binding precedents but are merely historical statements of what has happened in the past, and current sentencing practices represent just one of the relevant sentencing factors to be considered.[9] None of the decisions relied upon are entirely factually analogous to your case.
[9]Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgleish (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR at 428
46In addition to those authorities, I have more generally considered both decisions of this and the higher courts, together with the most recent sentencing snapshot from the Sentencing Advisory Council dealing with the crime of incest, in the context of having due regard to current sentencing practices for serious sexual offending such as yours.[10]
[10]Sentencing snapshot, sentencing trends in the higher courts of Victoria 2017-18 to 2021-22, September 2023, No 284, Incest.
47There are a number of other matters relevant to the sentencing exercise in your case. By virtue of your relevant prior conviction, upon your conviction for Charge 1 on the indictment, you fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender pursuant to Part 2A of the Sentencing Act 1991. Pursuant to s6D of that Act, I must regard the protection of the community from you as the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed, and I may, in order to achieve that purpose, impose a disproportionate sentence having regard to the gravity of your offence. Furthermore, pursuant to s6E of that Act, there is a presumption of cumulation.
48In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I have also had regard to the fact that Charge 1 is a rolled-up charge, incorporating a single act of digital vaginal penetration, and two acts of penile/vaginal penetration of your granddaughter, Michelle, on or about 22 April 2022.
49Furthermore, shortly prior to digitally penetrating your granddaughter, Michelle, on an occasion between 16 and 17 July 2022 (Charge 2 on the indictment), you unsuccessfully attempted to penetrate her vagina with your penis, this conduct representing an uncharged act in accordance with the summary of prosecution opening on plea.[11] Whilst you are not to be separately punished for this particular act, as an uncharged act it provides context for the digital penetration captured by Charge 2 on the indictment.
[11]Exhibit 1
50Having regard to these matters and the overall circumstances of your case, I am satisfied that a degree of cumulation is required between Charges 1 and 2, subject however to the overarching principle of totality and the need to avoid a crushing sentence, particularly having regard to your advanced age and ill-health.
Sentencing submissions
51In the context of the length of any sentence of imprisonment to be imposed, the prosecution submitted that your case represented a very serious case of incest, aggravated by your relevant prior conviction with regard to the same victim, and the pregnancy which resulted from your criminality on this occasion.
52Whilst ultimately not relied upon by your subsequent counsel, Ms Munster, your initial counsel, Mr Collins, in written submissions, somewhat irregularly in my view, submitted that a sentence of three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months would be appropriate.[12]
[12]Exhibit A, page 5
53As I indicated to Ms Munster at your further plea hearing on 8 February 2024, such a sentence, in my view, would be wholly inadequate and indeed inappropriate given the gravity of your conduct and the overall circumstances of your case.
Sentence to be imposed
54Having regard to all of the relevant factors, principles and purposes applicable in your case, I have determined, consistent with the parsimony principle, that nothing less than a significant sentence of imprisonment is warranted in your case. The relevant mitigatory factors to which I have referred have impacted upon both the head sentence and the non-parole component.
55Can I just check that counsel are still on the link? We still have everyone?
56MR O'DOHERTY: Yes, Your Honour.
57MS MUNSTER: Yes.
58HIS HONOUR: Thanks. All right, Mr Long, I now come to the portion of my remarks where I announce the sentences to be imposed.
59On Charge 1, sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendent, you are convicted and sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment.
60On Charge 2, sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendent, you are convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
61I order that 15 month of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1, making a total effective sentence of seven years and nine months’ imprisonment.
62I order that you serve a period of five years and seven months’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
63Pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare a period of 105 days has been served by way of pre-sentence detention, and I order that this period be administratively deducted from your sentence.
64Pursuant to s6F of the Sentencing Act 1991, in relation to Charge 2, I declare that I have sentenced you as a serious sexual offender for this offence, and I direct that this matter be entered into the records of the court.
65Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty of these offences, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 10 years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years.
66Finally, I will make the disposal order sought by the prosecution, this application not being opposed by you.
67I note there is no application by the prosecution pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and in the circumstances I decline to make such an order given the age of Mr Long and the sentence I have just imposed.
68That completes my sentencing remarks. Mr O'Doherty, firstly, are there any ambiguities with regard to the sentence or have I missed anything that needs to be dealt with?
69MR O'DOHERTY: Not as far as I can ascertain, Your Honour. It all seems to be in order.
70HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Ms Munster?
71MS MUNSTER: Thank you, Your Honour. Nothing further from me.
72HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
- - -
3
0