Director of Public Prosecutions v Lucas (a pseudonym)
[2024] VCC 1972
•6 December 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| THOMAS LUCAS (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE TIWANA | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 2 September 2024, 23 September 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 6 December 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Lucas (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 1972 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal law – Sentence
Catchwords: Seven charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years – Guilty verdicts following trial – Victim under the age of ten at time of offending – Accused aged between 20 and 22 – Accused diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability – Profound and lifelong impacts on victim – Delay – No relevant priors or subsequent offending – No remorse – Muldrock and Verdins.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic).
Cases Cited:Clifton v The King [2024] VSCA 82; Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; Gordon v R [2013] VSCA 343; R v AMP [2010] VSCA 48; R v Cattell (2019) 280 A Crim R 502; R v RLP (2009) 213 A Crim R 461; Verdins v The Queen (2007) 16 VR 269; WCB v The Queen (2010) 29 VR 483.
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 7 years and 8 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr A Moore (Trial and Plea) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C Hooper | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Thomas Lucas,[1] on 24 April 2024, you were found guilty by a jury of twelve of seven charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16.[2] The jury also found in respect of each charge, that the act of sexual penetration was committed by you when James Reid,[3] your victim, was under the age of 10 years.
[1]A pseudonym.
[2]Contrary to s 45(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 as amended by the Crimes (Amendment) Act 2000.
[3]A pseudonym.
2It is now my task to sentence you in respect of this offending.
3The maximum term of imprisonment for this offence in circumstances where your victim was a child under the age of 10, is 25 years’ imprisonment.
Circumstances of the offending
4In returning verdicts of guilty, the jury accepted James’ evidence in respect of each charge beyond reasonable doubt. He was a compelling witness, who appeared visibly distressed recounting the historical abuse.
5The offending occurred sometime between 1 December 1992 and 30 July 1995 at your home address where you lived with your mother. The seven charges represent four separate incidents. You were aged between 20 and 22 at the time of the offending. James, who lived next door to you, was aged somewhere between 7 and 9.[4]
[4]The victim said he was around six when the first incident occurred - Transcript dated 17 April 2024 at page 34, lines 19 to 24.
Incident one (charges 1, 2 and 3)
6James was playing in the street with other children having water fights. You joined them on the street and provided a tub of waterbombs and played with the children. There came a stage when you were left alone with James as the other children had gone home. James asked you if you had any more waterbombs. You replied ‘yeah’ and invited him into your house. He followed you into your house. This was his first time inside your house. You took him into your bedroom. You made him bend over the bed, face down, and his pants were pulled down.[5] You pulled the cheeks of his buttocks open and began licking and poking your tongue inside his anus.[6]
[5]The victim was unable to say who pulled the pants down.(Transcript dated 17 April 2024 at page 38, L 5 and 6).
[6]Charge 1.
7You then placed a porn magazine in front of him and inserted your penis inside his anus and began penetrating him.[7] He told you it was hurting, he was crying, struggling and trying to pull away. You told him to keep quiet and not make too much noise if he wanted to see his parents again. You ejaculated onto him, licked the semen off him, and then penetrated his anus again with your penis.[8]
[7]Charge 2.
[8]Charge 3.
8You then took him into the toilet and wiped his buttocks with toilet paper. James went home. He did not tell his parents because he was scared.
Incident two (charges 4 and 5)
9On another occasion, James was walking back home having been to the park. As he walked past your house, you called him over and ushered him inside your house. You took him into your bedroom. Once again, he bent over the bed with his pants pulled down. You placed a porn magazine in front of him and dictated to him when he should turn the pages. You began licking and penetrating his anus with your tongue.[9] You then penetrated his anus with your penis.[10] Having ejaculated you licked the semen. James gave evidence, he was crying and begging you to stop and to let him go home.
[9]Charge 4.
[10]Charge 5.
10You told him that if he told anybody about your offending: he would be taken away from his parents; he would never see his parents again; you would tell everyone; and he would be laughed at. Once he got home, James told his father he was at the park and made no complaint about your offending as he was scared.
Incident three (charge 6)
11On another occasion you coerced James to climb over the fence from his backyard and enter into your house. You told him if he did not comply you would tell people about your offending, and he would be taken away from his parents. Once in the house, you placed a chair sideways at the dining table and told him to kneel on the chair. You bent him over the dining table and penetrated his anus with your penis until you ejaculated.[11]
[11]Charge 6.
Incident four (charge 7)
12On another occasion, you again coerced him into climbing over the fence and into your house by saying you would tell people about your offending, and he would be taken away from his parents. On this occasion, you put a porn video on the TV in the lounge room. You then bent him over the coffee table and penetrated his anus with your penis until you ejaculated.[12]
[12]Charge 7.
Complaint and arrest
13The victim made a complaint about the offending to a friend when he was about 18 years old, that being around 2004.[13] He pulled his friend aside and told him to stop making stupid gay jokes. When the friend asked why, he replied that he had been penetrated by you when he was younger.[14]
[13]The victim asserted that he first made a complaint to the same friend prior to his family moving out of the area in which the offending occurred, that being prior to 30 July 1995. (Transcript dated 18 April 2024 at page 134 L31).
[14] Transcript dated 17 April 2024 at page 92 line 10 to page 93 L 26.
14James reported the offending to the police on 15 July 2020.
15You were arrested on 31 March 2021. You denied the allegations in the formal police interview. You were charged on summons on 6 August 2021.
Impact of the offending
16Your victim, who is now in his late thirties, made a poignant victim impact statement,[15] which was read out by the prosecutor. This statement confirms the unfortunate and devastating impact of sexual offending upon a young child victim. Your cruel offending has impacted many facets of his life. He has been plagued by mental health issues, struggled with relationships and has found it difficult to hold down employment. He has struggled with sleep, including struggling to get to sleep, waking up in a state of panic and being unable to get back to sleep. He is unable to trust anyone generally, which is something he hates. He feels it would be irresponsible of him to have his own children when something like this can happen.
[15]Exhibit A (victim impact statement declared on 14 June 2024).
Personal circumstances
17You are the youngest of four children. You were born in circumstances where your mother was unaware of the pregnancy until she went into labour. After your birth, your parents separated. Your mother commenced a relationship with her brother-in-law. Apart from the occasional smack, you denied experiencing any childhood trauma.
18When you were around seven or eight weeks old, you received a penicillin injection for an infection. This caused a severe allergic reaction. You went into respiratory arrest and were rushed to hospital. You received cardiopulmonary resuscitation and stabilised. No further care or treatment was provided to you, and you were sent home the next day.
19Your sister has reported that your language milestones were delayed. You lagged behind your siblings as far as your vocabulary and expressive abilities were concerned.
20You completed prep to Year 6 at a local primary school. You struggled at school with language comprehension and literacy. You had poor emotional regulation and significant difficulties with controlling your impulses.
21It became evident that you would struggle in mainstream education and so you were enrolled at a Special School. You remained at this school until the age of 17 when you were suspended for getting into fights.
22You have not obtained any vocational qualifications, and apart from some casual cash in hand work, such as mowing lawns for neighbours and basic labour work, you have never been formally employed. You have been in receipt of the Disability Support Pension for many years.
23Between the ages of 19 and 24, you would smoke three to four grams of cannabis on weekends.[16] You have not used any other illicit substances.
[16]You stopped using cannabis as it would make you feel “weird” and you would “hear things in [your] head”. You have never been diagnosed with substance-induced psychosis.
24You have consumed alcohol on a regular basis from the age of 20. Between the ages of 20 and 40 you drank around six cans of pre-mixed alcohol every two or three days. In recent years, you have been drinking some 24 cans of alcohol every fortnight.
25You have had approximately five intimate relationships of short duration with women. The longest lasted two years when you were in your twenties. You are currently single and have no children.
Gravity of the offending
26It can be said with absolutely no doubt, this was very grave offending. Each charge attracts a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment. You took advantage of a particularly young and vulnerable child and abused him on many separate occasions over an extended period of time. You, as an adult, had no regard to his innocence or distressed state. You engendered fear in him by telling him he would be taken away from his parents and that no one would believe him. During the course of the offending, you introduced him to pornography. The impact of your offending on your victim has been significant, and continues to take a toll on the quality of his life. Sexual offending of this nature has been rightly described by the Courts as vile, depraved, evil and abhorrent.
Defence submissions
27In addition to his oral submissions, your counsel, Mr Hooper, relied upon written submissions dated 23 August 2024.[17] In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following material:
(i)A neuropsychological report dated 23 June 2024, prepared by Dr Sara Fratti;[18]
(ii)A psychological report dated 20 August 2024, prepared by Gina Cidoni;[19]
(iii)Three certificates of courses completed in custody;[20] and
(iv)A bundle of six character references.[21]
[17]Exhibit 4.
[18]Exhibit 1.
[19]Exhibit 5.
[20]Exhibit 2.
[21]Exhibit 3.
28Mr Hooper quite properly conceded that your offending was objectively very serious,[22] and could only be met by a term of imprisonment involving a non-parole period.
[22]Exhibit 4 at [2].
29His written submissions referred to a number of cases to assist the court with sentencing.[23]
[23]R v RLP (2009) 213 A Crim R 461; R v AMP [2010] VSCA 48; WCB v The Queen (2010) 29 VR 483; R v Cattell (2019) 280 A Crim R 502.
30Mr Hooper relied upon the following matters in mitigation:
(i)Your intellectual disability and the report of Dr Fratti giving rise to Verdins and Muldrock considerations;[24]
(ii)Delay;
(iii)Lack of any relevant priors or any subsequent offending; and
(iv)Your youth at the time of the offending.
[24]Verdins v The Queen (2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’); Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 (‘Muldrock’).
31You were convicted following a trial. You were entitled to contest the matter. However, it means that I am not able to give you any discount that a plea of guilty carries. There is no evidence you are remorseful.[25] I note that you continue to not accept responsibility for the offending.
[25]The fact you did not plead guilty and have not shown any remorse deprives you of a mitigating factor but does not aggravate the offending.
Delay, unfairness and rehabilitation
32It is well understood that it is common for there to be delay in the making of a complaint about sexual abuse. The offending occurred between 1993 and 1995. The victim made a complaint to a friend around 2004,[26] followed by a formal police complaint on 15 July 2020. You were arrested and interviewed on 31 March 2021 and charged on 6 August 2021.
[26]At least the most fulsome complaint.
33You were committed to this court for trial on 7 June 2022. Covid-19 and unavailability of trial counsel resulted in further delay. The trial was initially listed for 24 August 2023 but was adjourned to 27 November 2023. It was then further adjourned and commenced before me on 16 April 2024. Following the jury verdict on 24 April 2024, at the request of your counsel, the matter was adjourned to a plea hearing on 1 July 2024. Shortly before the scheduled plea hearing, your lawyers requested a further adjournment to allow for the preparation of a psychological report. The plea was administratively adjourned to 2 September 2024. On 2 September 2024, the plea was adjourned part-heard due to technical difficulties with Mr Hooper’s link who was appearing remotely. The plea was finally heard on 23 September 2024. Due to pre-existing commitments with circuit and leave, it was adjourned for sentence to today’s date.
34The delay of course does not in any way reduce the objective gravity of the offending. It is not submitted by your counsel that the significant delay in making the formal complaint has any relevance in considering the question of unfairness to you. However, the overall delay nearing 30 years is relevant in considering your prospects of rehabilitation. You have not reoffended in any way over the last three decades. Apart from a single appearance before the Magistrates Court in 1992, which has no relevance to this sentencing task, you have no prior matters.[27] This bears on your prospects of rehabilitation.
[27]On 19 October 1992 you were sentenced without conviction to an adjourned undertaking with which you complied, for an offence of shop theft and possession of a prescribed weapon.
35I have also borne in mind the risk assessment conducted by Gina Cidoni. Ms Cidoni considers your risk of re-offending as medium.
36Since your remand, you have completed courses in hygiene practices for food safety and workplace safety arrangements, which contribute towards a Certificate II in food processing. You are working in the prison bakery.
37I note that you maintain your innocence and have displayed no remorse. However, in light of the fact that you have not reoffended over nearly three decades, I am prepared to accept that your prospects of rehabilitation can be viewed as reasonable. They will be further enhanced if you are able to accept responsibility and meaningfully partake in rehabilitative programs in custody.[28]
[28]Exhibit 5 at [107].
38Mr Hooper did rely upon the delay in the finalisation of proceedings since your initial arrest, being a delay of over three years and eight months. I accept that this matter has been hanging over your head and no doubt caused you anxiety not knowing the ultimate outcome. In that way this period of delay can be viewed as some punishment.
39You have enjoyed a close relationship with your mother. You have lived with her most of your life and have been her official carer. I accept the deterioration in her health in your absence will render imprisonment more onerous for you.
40Relying upon Dr Fratti’s report, Mr Hooper submitted that your moral culpability ought to be moderated and principle five of Verdins is enlivened.
Psychological assessment by Mr Gerry Egan
41Around the time of the offending conduct for which you fall to be sentenced, when you were 21 years old, you were seen by a psychologist, Mr Gerry Egan.[29] Mr Egan described you as having a long history of:[30]
maladaptive and provocative behaviour involving bullying, aggression, noncompliance, temper outbursts, and profound difficulty with academic work.
[29]Mr Egan was consulted for advice as to Mr Lucas’ capacity to undertake employment.
[30]Exhibit 2 at [12].
42Mr Egan noted that at the age of 15, you scored in the Intellectually Disabled Range (Full-Scale IQ of 66) on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. Mr Egan’s review showed a slight improvement in performance with a Full-Scale IQ of 73,[31] still ranging between the Intellectually Disabled and Borderline range.[32]
[31]Confidence interval (+/-5).
[32] Exhibit 2 at [13].
43Your scores on acquired knowledge, verbal conceptualisation, reading, spelling, and arithmetic skills were in the profoundly impaired range, consistent with your history of long-term learning deficits.[33] Significant deficits were revealed with your memory functions.[34] Mr Egan noted that you lacked a “satisfactory retrieval strategy” and showed “evidence of attentional and concentration difficulties”.
[33]Ibid at [13]. 0.4th percentile.
[34]Exhibit 2 at [13]. Memory quotient of 64, classified by Mr Egan as “sub-average”.
44Additional tests were administered to evaluate your personality and behavioural issues. It was apparent that you had significant difficulties understanding despite your sister assisting by simplifying and repeating the questions. Your responses indicated significant maladjustment, a high level of anxiety, and a strong likelihood of disruptive and aggressive behaviours. Your limited intellectual functioning, illiteracy, innumeracy, and maladaptive and antagonistic tendencies meant your vocational options were deemed “very limited”.
45Mr Egan concluded that your profile and clinical presentation were consistent with a Mild Intellectual Disability, compounded by significant learning difficulties and maladaptive behaviours. Accordingly, you were deemed suitable for a Disability Support Pension.
Dr Sara Fratti’s neuropsychological assessment
46Dr Fratti assessed you at the Correctional Facility over a period of three hours on 31 May 2024,[35] she states:[36]
It was observed that [you] needed repetition and simplification of information to understand the session’s purpose and fully consent to participate in the assessment.
[35]Ibid at [38].
[36]Ibid at [5].
47Dr Fratti further noted:[37]
[Your] receptive and expressive language were markedly impaired. [Your] speech was impoverished and poorly articulated. [You] required simplification, paraphrasing, and repetition of questions, including test instructions. [You] struggled with offering an organised account of [your] past history, requiring prompts to stay on topic.
…
[You] appeared behaviourally and emotionally immature relative to [your] chronological age. [You] also presented as having a limited capacity to engage in self-reflective or insight-oriented thinking.
[37]Ibid at [41] to [43].
48Dr Fratti, with assistance from your sister, outlined your personal history as set out in these reasons. Dr Fratti also had the benefit of Mr Egan’s assessment as summarised in these reasons, which was undertaken when you were 21 years old. Importantly, Mr Egan’s assessment occurred around the time of the offending for which I am sentencing you.
49During Dr Fratti’s assessment, you strongly denied the offending of which you have been found guilty.[38] You were able to understand that the offending of which you have been convicted was morally wrong and against social norms.
[38]Exhibit 2 at [1], [27] and [65].
50You acknowledged long standing challenges with literacy, numeracy, attention and multitasking, as well as being easily distracted and having a poor memory.
51You are largely independent in undertaking basic personal care tasks such as showering and grooming. You are able to prepare basic meals and engage in tasks such as cleaning around the house. Despite failing your driving test multiple times when younger, you have recently successfully obtained your full licence.
52Your sister assists you with more complex duties such as managing finances. You also rely upon her to simplify explanations and assist in tasks such as signing contracts.[39]
[39]Ibid at [37] (she has not been appointed Mr Lucas’ formal guardian or administrator).
53An assessment of your intellectual abilities was undertaken utilising the Fourth Edition of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.
54Your cognitive ability, being a Full-Scale IQ of 70, falls between the Intellectually Disabled and Borderline range. Dr Fratti states:[40]
Due to the variability in [your] performance across different indices and subtests, the Full-Scale IQ score becomes less informative, and [your] cognitive abilities are better understood by examining the individual indices and subtests.
[40]Ibid at [50].
55A profound impairment was indicated in the verbal task assessment. This involved skills such as vocabulary, concept formation, abstract reasoning and general knowledge. The score fell within the Extremely Low range.[41]
[41]Exhibit 2 at [51]. Verbal Comprehension Index (‘VCI’) = 58, 0.3 percentile.
56Basic attention skills and working memory fell in the Extremely Low to Borderline range.[42]
[42] Ibid at [53]. WMI = 69, 2nd percentile.
57Processing speed skills fell in the Borderline to Low Average range.[43]
[43]Ibid at [54]. Processing Skills Index (‘PSI’) = 79, 8th percentile.
58Your capacity to learn and recall structured and meaningful information was assessed as severely impaired, that is in the Extremely Low range for immediate and delayed recall.
59Your ability to rote learn a word list repeated to you a few times, and your ability to learn and recall simple visual information, fell in the Borderline range.[44]
[44]As far as rote learning was concerned, you fell in the Borderline range for both immediate and delayed recall. In terms of learning and recalling visual information, it fell in the Borderline range for immediate recall but Average range for delayed recall (Exhibit 2 at [57] and [58]).
60In terms of executive functions, which involve novel problem solving, reasoning, mental flexibility, self-monitoring, insight, planning and organisation, marked deficits were exhibited. All were rated as Extremely Low, including impulse control and inhibition.[45]
[45]Exhibit 2 at [60] to [62].
61Literacy and numeracy testing demonstrated that you were virtually unable to read single words of more than three or four letters. Your word reading proficiency fell in the Extremely Low range and at a kindergarten-equivalent level. Your mental arithmetic skills fell in the lower end of the Borderline range.
62K10 was administered to assess your subjective experience of psychological distress during the month prior to the assessment. Symptoms consistent with very high psychological distress, such as irritability, agitation, hopelessness, restlessness, impulsivity and poor initiation were endorsed.
63Dr Fratti opines that your developmental issues were the consequence of possible brain damage secondary to respiratory arrest following an allergic reaction to penicillin at two months of age.[46]
[46]Exhibit 2 at [66]. Although, Dr Fratti is unable to comment further as no medical records are available and no brain imaging or neurological follow ups were recommended at the time.
64Dr Fratti opines there is a strong indication of mild intellectual disability. This is a long term condition that appears to have been present throughout the entirety of your life, including during the period of offending.[47]
[47]Exhibit 2 at [77].
65Your regular consumption of alcohol may have contributed to further changes in memory and executive function over time. Your diabetes, high blood pressure and being overweight are risk factors for further brain functioning deterioration. An MRI of the brain is recommended to assist in managing your cognitive functioning.
66Dr Fratti opines that you meet the DSM 5-TR criteria for diagnoses of Language Disorder and Specific Learning Disorder (in reading).
Moral culpability, general deterrence, punishment and denunciation
67I have taken into account the guidance from the High Court in Muldrock. You have been assessed with a mild intellectual disability. Subtests have revealed certain areas of your cognition to be more significantly affected than others. Your cognitive limitations have been life long and were operative at the time of your offending.
68I accept that your moral culpability for your offending must be reduced in line with Muldrock and later cases that I was referred to.[48]
[48]E.g. Clifton v The King [2024] VSCA 82 (‘Clifton’).
69I also accept that you were young when the offending occurred and your youth alone would reduce your moral culpability to some extent.
70Having said that, in light of the matters I have set out when dealing with the gravity of your offending, your moral culpability nevertheless remains high. In respect of the connection between the offending and your intellectual disability, Dr Fratti opines:[49]
While [your] mild intellectual disability and significant language disorder contribute to [your] social, emotional, and behavioural immaturity, it is crucial to recognise that these cognitive impairments and mental health factors cannot fully explain the alleged offending behaviour…Albeit rejecting the accusations, [you have] demonstrated an understanding of the societal wrongfulness of such sexual conduct.
[49]Exhibit 2 at [90].
71Your life long cognitive deficits, including during the offending period and currently, allow me to reduce the emphasis on just punishment, denunciation and general deterrence. In Clifton, the Court of Appeal observed:
The appellant has a significant intellectual disability that impairs his ability to reason as a normal person would. The existence of this disability reduces — but does not eliminate — his moral culpability and makes him a less suitable vehicle for general deterrence, punishment and denunciation.
72However, I make it plain, that despite a reduction in emphasis, your offending against a very young and vulnerable child still requires your offending conduct to be denounced. Further, you remain a suitable vehicle for deterring others from committing offending of this grave nature.
73In light of your youth at the time of the offending and the fact that you have not re-offended, I accept that lesser emphasis is required on specific deterrence. However, this sentencing purpose also remains important considering your continued denial of the offending and Ms Cidoni’s risk assessment.
74I accept that principle five of Verdins is enlivened. This is your first experience of custody. Your intellectual disability and significant cognitive deficits will make imprisonment more burdensome on you.
75Dr Fratti states:[50]
In the event of a custodial disposition, [your] limitation secondary to [your] neurodevelopmental conditions must be taken into account. [You] will be unable to benefit from written or lengthy verbal information and would need extra time and guidance to learn and adapt to new tasks or requirements. In this sense, the evidence [is] that [your] present cognitive impairment may increase the burden of incarceration.
[50]Exhibit 2, [95]. See also Exhibit 5, [109].
76I also note the observations of Ms Cidoni which echo the opinion of Dr Fratti.[51] Ms Cidoni has also diagnosed you with a Major Depressive Disorder, described as recurrent and moderate, and Anxiety Disorder. She states that there is no evidence that you experienced depression or anxiety in your childhood.[52]
[51]Exhibit 5, [109].
[52]Ibid, [103] – [108].
Serious sexual offender provisions
77Pursuant to s 6B of the Sentencing Act 1991, upon conviction and being sentenced to a term of imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2, you fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on the Charges 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
78Pursuant to s 6D of the SentencingAct, in determining the length of any sentence on Charges 3 to 7, I must regard community protection as the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed. It has not been suggested, and nor do I consider it appropriate in this case, that a disproportionate sentence is necessary to achieve the protection of the community.
79Pursuant to s 6F(1) of the Sentencing Act, your status as a serious sexual offender is entered into the records of the Court.
80Pursuant to s 6E of the Sentencing Act, there is a presumption of accumulation with regards to sentencing for serious sexual offender offences. However, I must bear in mind the overarching principle of totality and the need to avoid a crushing sentence. I must ensure that the totality principal is applied in a manner that does not undermine the legislative policy inherent in s 6E of the Sentencing Act.[53]
[53]Gordon v R [2013] VSCA 343 at [74].
Sentencing
81Having taken into account all relevant circumstances and factors, Mr Lucas, you are convicted on all charges and sentenced as follows:
· On Charge 1, you are sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
· On Charge 2, you are sentenced to 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
· On Charge 3, you are sentenced to 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
· On Charge 4, you are sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
· On Charge 5, you are sentenced to 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
· On Charge 6, you are sentenced to 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
· On Charge 7, you are sentenced to 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
82The sentence on Charge 7 will be the base sentence. I direct that 4 months of each of the sentences on Charges 2, 5 and 6 be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the base sentence. The remaining sentences will run concurrently. This makes a total effective sentence of 7 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
83I direct that you serve a non-parole period of 5 years’ imprisonment.
Pre-sentence Detention
84Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, the period of 226 days of pre-sentence detention, not including today’s date, is hereby declared as having already been served in respect of this sentence.
Sex Offender Registration
85Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, registration is mandatory in relation to these offences and the reporting period is life. Upon your release from prison, you must report your personal details to Victoria Police and continue to comply with the reporting obligations. You will be sent an acknowledgement form for signing in due course and will be provided with a document setting out your reporting obligations upon your release and the consequences of any breach. It is an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with your reporting obligations.
86HIS HONOUR: Ms Fedyszyn, anything arising?
87MS FEDYSZYN: No, your Honour.
88HIS HONOUR: Mr Hooper?
89MR HOOPER: No, your Honour.
0
9
0