Director of Public Prosecutions v Macklin
[2024] VCC 359
•22 March 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 23-00707
CR 22-01503
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SHANNON MACKLIN |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LAURITSEN |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 21 February 2024 & 21 March 2024 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 22 March 2024 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Macklin |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 359 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Charges of aggravated burglary, burglary, theft, intentionally damage property, possess a drug of dependence, make threat to kill, make threat to inflict serious injury, unlawful assault and negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime –plea of guilty to two indictments – Bugmy – poor prospects of rehabilitation – totality.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 ss 5(1), 16(3C).
Cases Cited:R v Macklin [2016] QCA 244; DPP v Bowd [2019] VSCA 246; Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; DPP v Hermann [2021] VSCA 160; Sabbatucci v The Queen [2021] VSCA 340; Newton v The Queen [2023] VSCA 22; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
Sentence: Overall total effective sentence is six years and four months imprisonment. Non-parole period set at four years and three months imprisonment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr D. Brown | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Nikakis | Haines & Polites |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Shannon Macklin, you have pleaded guilty to eight charges of burglary, four charges of theft, seven charges of intentionally damaging property and two charges of possessing a drug of dependence.
2In addition, on indictment N10505790, you pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated burglary, two charges of theft, a charge of making a threat to kill, a charge of making a threat to inflict serious injury, a charge of possessing a drug of dependence, a charge of negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime and a charge of unlawful assault.
Circumstances
3The circumstances of your offending in relation to indictment C2114837 are set out in the prosecution opening for plea, which is Exhibit A, which as you appreciate this morning has been amended to a slight degree.
4For the most part, both of you and Mr Scicluna offended together. Exhibit A divides your offending into eight episodes and for convenience I will adopt that structure.
Episode 1
5At about 12.05 am on 7 September 2021 both of you and a third person, went to the Opalia shopping centre in Weir Views. You got into a Telstra pit and cut all of the NBN cables. This rendered inoperable the various services provided through the cables.
6Your co-offender, Mr Scicluna, rang the nearby newsagency 14 times in order to confirm the correct cables had been cut. Both of you used a crowbar to force open the front door of the newsagency causing damage and entered the premises. Damaging the cables and the front door of the newsagency constitutes Charge 1, a charge of intentionally damaging property. The entry into those premises constitutes Charge 2, a charge of burglary. Both of you then stole a CCTV system, a safe and $4,000 in cash. This constitutes charge 3, a charge of theft.
Episode 2
7At about 1.55 am on 9 September 2021, both of you went to a Telstra pit near to the Riddles Creek Hair & Beauty Salon. You accessed the pit and cut the NBN cables which rendered inoperable the services provided through the pit.
8Both of you and another male forced open the front door of the salon causing damage to it. It is the damage to the Telstra pit and to the front door which constitute Charge 4, a charge of intentionally damaging property. However, after entering, an alarm went off and you left. This constitutes Charge 5, a charge of burglary.
Episode 3
9At about 11.15 pm on 18 September 2021, both of you went to The Centreway in Lara. You got into three Telstra pits near to a business called 'Lara Lotteries', you cut all of the cables causing the various services to stop operating. This constitutes Charge 6, a charge of intentionally damaging property.
10Both of you forced open the rear door of the business premises and entered. This constitutes Charge 7, a charge of burglary. You stole multiple scratchy books, a safe containing $6,000 and various other items. This constitutes Charge 8, a charge of theft.
Episode 4
11At about 10 pm on 19 September 2021, both of you got into a Telstra pit near to The Village Foodstore in Hillside. You cut the cables causing the services supplied by them inoperable. This constitutes Charge 9, a charge of intentionally damaging property.
12You both forced open the front door and entered the premises of The Village Foodstore. In opening the door, you caused significant damage to an adjacent window. This constitutes Charge 10, a charge of burglary. You then used a saw or something similar to a saw in an unsuccessful attempt to break into an ATM.
Episode 5
13Between 12.30 am and 3.30 am on 22 September 2021, both of you entered the premises of Rue D'Fleur Florist & Giftware Shop in Romsey through its roof. This constitutes Charge 11, a charge of burglary. You disabled through removal the telecommunication cables inside the shop. This constitutes Charge 12, a charge of intentionally damaging property. You then used a saw or something similar in an unsuccessful attempt to break into an ATM causing an alarm to operate.
Episode 6
14At about 1.45 am on 24 September 2021, both of you went to the premises of the Broadford News & Tatts in Broadford. After trying to enter through the roof, both of you forced an entry through a rear door using a crowbar or something similar. The entry constitutes Charge 13, a charge of burglary. You stole $1,500 in cigarettes and $508 in cash. This constitutes Charge 14, a charge of theft.
Episode 7
15At about 5.50 am on 24 September 2021, you returned to the Opalia Shopping Centre in Weir Views. Using a crowbar, you forced the front door of the Opalia NewsXpress. This constitutes Charge 15, a charge of intentionally damaging property. Once inside the premises, you stole a safe containing $2,500 in cash and 30 scratchy books. Entering the premises constitutes Charge 16, a charge of burglary. Stealing cash and scratchy books constitutes Charge 17, a charge of theft.
Episode 8
16At about 2 am on 28 September 2021, both of you forced open a glass door to the Cobblebank Village Shopping Centre in Cobblebank and entered the premises. This constitutes Charge 18, a charge of burglary. You used a saw or something similar in an attempt to break into an ATM. This attempt caused damage to the ATM and constitutes Charge 19, a charge of intentionally damaging property.
Investigation
17Through various means, including the use of search warrants, the police identified both of you as the offenders for these offences. A search of Mr Macklin’s home found, among other things, two re-sealable bags containing cannabis. This Constitutes Charge 20, a charge of possessing a drug of dependence. They also found a vial of testosterone which constitutes Charge 21, another charge of possessing a drug of dependence.
Indictment N10505790
18In relation to the charges on this indictment, the circumstances appear in the summary of prosecution opening for plea, which is also Exhibit A.
19On 14 March 2022, Mr Macklin went to a private home in Melton. Present at the home were four people, a husband and wife and their two children. The children were then aged 10 and 12.
20At about 7.30 am, you went into the backyard of the property, armed yourself with a garden stake and entered the house through an unlocked door. These circumstances constitute Charge 1, a charge of aggravated burglary. Once inside the house, you additionally armed yourself with a knife sharpening tool obtained from the kitchen.
21You then took the wallet of the husband which constitutes Charge 2, a charge of theft. You also took handbags belonging to the wife and this constitutes Charge 3, a charge of theft.
22The wife heard a sound from the kitchen which she did not recognise. Then her son screamed 'Mum, Dad, there is a man in the house'. The wife went from her bed and saw you holding a garden stake and with her four handbags draped over your shoulder. You were less than two metres from her when you raised the garden stake, pointed its sharp end towards her and yelled 'Don't come near me, I am going to kill you'. This constitutes Charge 4, a charge of threatening to kill.
23The wife called out to her husband that there was a man in their house. You then left the house through a rear door and ran towards the front. The husband left his bed, left through the front door and caught up with you. You and he struggled. He was helped by his wife who you elbowed in the face. You did not injure her. The struggle lasted for about 10 minutes during which you said to the husband 'I'm going to stab you, you bastard. I have a syringe'. You also said you had a syringe in your pocket. This constitutes Charge 5, a charge of threatening to inflict serious injury.
24Meanwhile, the son had phoned Triple 0 and the police. The police arrived soon afterwards, arrested and took you to a police station. Owing to the way you appeared to the police, you were taken by ambulance to hospital.
25The police searched your possessions and found relevantly:
(a) about 5.5 grams of methylamphetamine. This constitutes Charge 6, a charge of possession of a drug of dependence;
(b) about 7.9 grams of cannabis. This also constitutes Charge 6;
(c) 34 tablets of Valium and one tablet of Viagra. Apart from the Viagra tablet, this is also part of Charge 6;
(d) a driver licence in the name of another person and a Chubb Security identification also in the name of another person. These items constitute Charge 7, a charge of negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime.
26At the time of all this offending, you were on bail. Apart from constituting the summary offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail, it brings into play s16(3C) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
Co-accused
27Melanie Trezise was involved in some of the incidents in indictment C2114837. She pleaded guilty to four charges of burglary, two charges of theft and two charges of attempted theft and a charge of committing an indictable offence while on bail. On 29 September 2022, without conviction, she was placed on a 12-month community correction order.
Criminal history
28Mr Macklin, excluding an appeal, you have appeared in a criminal court on
28 occasions between 26 September 1994 and 12 July 2021. You have been found guilty or convicted of 144 charges. You have been sentenced to immediate imprisonment on nine occasions and your longest sentence was six years' imprisonment.29In the case of R v Macklin[1], McMurdo P set out some of your criminal history and the circumstances of the offending the subject of the appeal before the Queensland Court of Appeal.
[1][2016] QCA 244 at [4] and [5] to [11].
Victim impact statements
Kerry Donnelly
30It appears Kerry Donnelly was the owner of the Riddells Creek Hair & Beauty Salon. She made an impact statement on 1 September 2023. She was present when both of you left her business premises. She thought one of you was holding something 'long' and was terrified. She could not open her business the next day and lost money as a result.
31Ms Donnelly has since sold her business and the building that housed it as she does not want to experience another burglary.
Charito Todd
32On 15 April 2023, Charito Todd made an impact statement. She is the wife in the Melton home relating to the charge of aggravated burglary against you.
33She and her two children still feel unsafe in their own home where she should feel safe and at peace. Her daughter suffers from panic attacks and her son receives counselling at school and privately. The latter is a significant cost to his parents. Ms Todd feels lost and alone. She considers psychological counselling for herself is inappropriate because her children are receiving it. She has no family in Australia other than her husband and children. She is fearful of your return for herself and her children.
Personal
34You are now 47 and are an only child born in Melbourne. Your parents separated when you were five, with you remaining with your mother. You had weekend access with your father being something you hated because it was spent at a hotel. Your father remarried and had three children, but you have no contact with your half-siblings.
35When you were 10, your mother re-partnered. Her new partner was a drug addict and you and he used drugs together.
36Your formal education was turbulent. You were expelled from a State primary school while in year 3. You then attended a Catholic primary school. You were sexually abused by a priest while at that school. This occurred on about 50 occasions. The abuse is described in the report of the psychiatrist, Dr Adlard. It was this abuse which led to your substance abuse. You went to a technical school for your secondary education. You were a poor attender at school, and you stayed there until 15.
37After school you worked with your father painting until you were about 16. Apparently, you stole from your father and he wanted nothing further to do with you.
38At about 16, you and your mother went to Queensland. While there, you stole a large amount of money from some drug dealers and needed to leave after about 12 months. You went to a farm at Kalkallo, living with one of your mother's brothers.
39Your mother married in Queensland, and you joined them there. You stole from them, and it caused the break-up of their relationship.
40After enjoying a number of relationships, your first long-term relationship was with Kim when you were 18. You and Kim have three children. Your children are now about 25, 23 and 17. For most of this relationship you were in prison. You and Kim separated in August 2021, and you came to Melbourne and lived with an uncle.
41Your use of alcohol and drugs started, in earnest, with the priest's abuse. You were given wine by the priest. You then stole to obtain more alcohol. You have used drugs continuously even while in gaol. When interviewed by Dr Adlard, you had been taking 1 to 1.5 grams of methylamphetamine daily until imprisoned in October 2021. After your release from prison in Queensland in December 2020, you used a gram of cannabis daily until late November 2021. In December 2021, you were drinking heavily, a bottle of scotch over two nights and 8-10 stubbies of full-strength beer daily.
42Your children live in Queensland. Kim has stopped you seeing them. This is unsurprising since she would be disappointed with you after supporting you in the hearing in the Court of Appeal. An effort described by McMurdo P as 'an apparent display of optimism over experience'[2].
[2]At [29].
43After your arrest, you were taken to a hospital with a suspected stroke. Following investigations, the hospital found no evidence of an acute or established stroke. It is unclear whether the hospital was able to diagnose your complaints.
Psychiatrist
44Steven Adlard is a consultant psychiatrist. On 2 December 2021, he interviewed you at the request of your lawyers in Queensland.[3] Much of your background comes from his report.
[3]Report dated 2 December 2021.
45Dr Adlard diagnosed you as suffering from a number of disorders: a post-traumatic stress disorder, an anxiety disorder, which was a mixture of a generalised anxiety disorder and a panic disorder, and an antisocial personality disorder. He also diagnosed five substance-use disorders, some of which were in early remission, and one was treated through replacement therapy.
46In relation to the effects of your clerical sexual abuse, Dr Adlard considered your anxiety disorder, with elements of a conduct disorder, existed before the abuse. He saw the post-traumatic stress disorder was the result of the clerical abuse. The same abuse aggravated the seriousness of the anxiety disorder. Both the antisocial personality disorder and your substance-abuse were products of your early life but were made worse by the clerical abuse.
47Dr Adlard considered your prognosis was poor, even with treatment it was very guarded. The poor prognosis was the product of your long-standing and well-entrenched post-traumatic stress disorder, the pervasive anxiety disorder, your prolonged and serious misuse of substances and your markedly abnormal personality traits.
Discussion
Purposes
48Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 sets out the purposes for which sentences may be imposed:
(a) to punish the offender to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances;
(b) to deter the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or of similar character;
(c) to establish conditions within which it is considered by the court that the offender's rehabilitation may be facilitated;
(d) to manifest the denunciation of the type of conduct the offender engaged in;
(e) to protect the community from the offender.
49Each of those sentencing purposes is relevant to your sentencing.
Maximum penalties
50The maximum penalty for the offences are:
(a) aggravated burglary, 25 years imprisonment;
(b) burglary, 10 years' imprisonment;
(c) theft, 10 years' imprisonment;
(d) intentionally damaging property, 10 years' imprisonment;
(e) making a threat to kill, 10 years' imprisonment;
(f) making a threat to inflict serious injury, five years' imprisonment.
(g) possessing a drug of dependence, being cannabis, on the indictment C2114837, the maximum penalty is a fine of five penalty units.
(h) possession of a drug of dependence being testosterone, is 12 months' imprisonment or a fine of 30 penalty units or both the fine and imprisonment.
(i) possession of a drug of dependence, a fine of 30 penalty units or imprisonment for one year.
(j) negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime, five years' imprisonment and
(k) committing an indictable offence while on bail, a fine of 30 penalty units or three months' imprisonment.
Nature and gravity of the offending
51In relation to the eight incidents, they occurred between 7 and 28 September 2021, a period of 21 days. This sort of behaviour used to be called a ‘crimewave’. The prosecution relies on a passage from the DPP v Bowd, where the collective significance of the behaviour is discussed:[4]
‘It can be seen from Schedule 1 that, in most instances, a period of days or weeks elapsed between the individual burglaries. It is clear, therefore, that DB had ample time to pause and reflect on his offending conduct. Instead of desisting, however, he made a deliberate decision, each time, to persist with what he well knew was serious illegal activity. In this sense, each new burglary and associated theft represented not only distinct criminality but distinct culpability.’
[4][2019] VSCA 246 at [28].
52Each of the eight incidents involved planning. It is submitted the planning lacked sophistication, but given the targets of your offending, I doubt much planning was necessary.
53The total of the property stolen in these burglaries was principally about $13,000 in cash, a CCTV system, cigarettes to the value of about $1,500.
54For you, the reason for offending was to obtain money and property to buy drugs for your personal use.
55Each of the incidents contain moderate examples of their type of offences.
Nature and gravity of offending - aggravated burglary and other charges
56You armed yourself moments before entering the house through an unlocked door, you were unaccompanied, your entry was in the early hours of the morning, it was a private home, there was a confrontation with one of the occupants. It was a terrifying event for the occupants in general.
Bugmy
57Both you and Mr Scicluna seek to apply the principles stated in Bugmy v The Queen[5] and I'll quote from paragraph 43.
‘…The experience of growing up in an environment surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may leave its mark on a person throughout life. Among other things, a background of that kind may compromise the person’s capacity to mature and to learn from experience. It is a feature of the person’s make-up and remains relevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence, notwithstanding that the person has a long history of offending.’
[5](2013) 249 CLR 571.
58Although these observations were moulded by the particular facts of Bugmy's case, the underlying reason for assessing the consequences of a person's upbringing was made clear in the of DPP v Hermann[6]:
‘It is the mark of a humane society that the moral judgment expressed through sentencing should take account of the lifelong damage that may result from exposure to violence or abuse or parental neglect in an offender’s formative years.’
[6][2021] VSCA 160 at [46].
59In Sabbatucci v The Queen[7], the court explained the elements requiring evaluation:
‘Whether, and to what extent, social disadvantage warrants a reduction in moral culpability in a particular case falls to be assessed by reference to the nature and circumstances of the offence, the nature and severity of the disadvantage suffered and whether the effects of the disadvantage can be seen to be in any way explanatory of the offending.’
[7][2021] VSCA 340 at [6].
60In Newton v The Queen[8], the court noted in Bugmy's case, there were two ways in which childhood deprivation may be relevant to the assessment of moral culpability, the general and the specific.
[8][2023] VSCA 22 at [36].
61The general is captured in this passage[9]:
‘The circumstance that an offender has been raised in a community surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may mitigate the sentence because his or her moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way.'
[9]Bugmy at [40].
62They also describe the specific, which I will not quote.
63With the necessary alterations, you seek to apply the general. I agree the principle applies to you, given your early formative years and also the extreme sexual abuse that you suffered by a cleric. Accordingly, a degree of moderation in the sentencing must occur because of your moral culpability. You did not rely specifically on any of the limbs or principles stated in the case of R v Verdins[10], but if you had I would have thought such that were applicable would be subsumed under the Bugmy considerations.
[10](2007) 16 VR 269.
Prospects of rehabilitation
64Mr Macklin, the aggravated burglary occurred immediately after you received a copy of the Writ to be issued on your behalf in the Victorian Supreme Court. It related to your childhood sexual abuse. Reading the proposed statement of claim brought back memories of the horrifying abuse perpetrated on you. To cope with these memories, you resorted to your usual means of using alcohol and methylamphetamine.
65From a psychological perspective, Dr Adlard considered your prognosis was poor. Even with treatment, it was very guarded. This prognosis was due to your long-standing and well-entrenched post-traumatic stress disorder, your pervasive anxiety disorder, your prolonged and serious misuse of substances and your markedly abnormal personality traits. Your criminal history is a reflection of those considerations translated into criminal behaviour. I consider your prospects of rehabilitation are poor.
Guilty pleas
66With you, Mr Macklin, your pleas to the charges on indictment N10505790, the aggravated burglary and other charges, were indicated at the third directions hearing in this court. However, no witnesses were cross-examined at the committal hearing.
67With the indictment you share with Mr Scicluna, your guilty pleas were early.
68There are several benefits of your guilty pleas. They are an emphatic acknowledgment of your offending. They show the victims and the world in general that you committed the offences.
69Second, they relieve the victims from the need to give evidence against you in a trial. I dare say that would have been a difficult task for them.
70Third, you have assisted the criminal justice process. You have removed your case from those needing a jury trial and allowed others to move forward. This has avoided the delay and saved the time and expense of a trial. Generally, jury trials are complicated affairs involving 12 jurors and lasting weeks. Avoiding that is a considerable benefit to the criminal justice system.
71Fourth, the crisis addressed in Worboyes v The Queen[11] and other cases has abated. On 5 May 2023, the World Health Organisation declared the virus no longer constituted a public health emergency. More recently this Court announced it had overcome the backlog of cases created by the pandemic. It had reached the pre-pandemic levels of pending cases. But in another respect, the virus still disturbs the smooth running of jury trials in this court, principally through the unavailability or loss of jurors. To a lesser extent, pleading guilty still benefits the system in the way identified in the case of Worboyes and this is more so where your indication was given when the effect of the pandemic was more pronounced.
[11][2021] VSCA 169.
72Overall, your guilty pleas entitle you to a sizeable discount on the sentences which would have been imposed if you had pleaded not guilty to the charge but had been found guilty after a trial.
Totality
73Your counsel raised the principle of totality. It was discussed by McMurdo P in your appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal where the President said:
‘The application of the totality principle therefore requires an evaluation of the overall criminality involved in all the offences with which the prisoner is charged. Where necessary, the Court must adjust the prima facie length of the sentences downward in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of the criminality and the totality of the sentences.’
74Since you committed the offences charged in indictment N10505790 while you were on bail, s16(3C) of the Sentencing Act requires cumulation unless I direct otherwise. This provision moderates the impact of the totality principle without removing it. Moreover, the principle remains for the overall criminality of your offending in both indictments.
Sentence
75For you, Mr Macklin, I will sentence you as follows. This is on the first indictment.
76On Charge 1, a charge of intentionally damaging property, six months' imprisonment.
77On Charge 2, a charge of burglary, 18 months' imprisonment.
78On Charge 3, a charge of theft, 18 months' imprisonment.
79On Charge 4, a charge of intentionally causing damage, nine months; imprisonment.
80On Charge 5, a charge of burglary, 19 months' imprisonment.
81On Charge 6, a charge of intentionally damaging property, nine months' imprisonment.
82On Charge 7, a charge or burglary, 20 months' imprisonment.
83On Charge 8, a charge of theft, 20 months' imprisonment.
84On Charge 9, a charge of intentionally damaging property, six months' imprisonment.
85On Charge 10, a charge of burglary, 21 months' imprisonment.
86On Charge 11, a charge of burglary, 22 months' imprisonment.
87On Charge 12, a charge of intentionally causing damage, six months' imprisonment.
88On charge 13, a charge of burglary, 23 months' imprisonment.
89On Charge 14, a charge of theft, six months' imprisonment.
90On Charge 15, a charge of intentionally damaging property, six months;' imprisonment.
91On Charge 16, a charge of burglary, 24 months' imprisonment.
92On Charge 17, a charge of theft, 24 months' imprisonment.
93On Charge 18, a charge of burglary, 25 months' imprisonment.
94On Charge 19, a charge of intentionally causing damage, six months' imprisonment.
95On Charge 20, a charge of possessing a drug of dependence being cannabis, you are convicted and discharged. Since the maximum penalty for this offence is a fine, imposing a fine will serve no useful purpose in light of the sentences of imprisonment I am imposing.
96On Charge 21, a charge of possessing a drug of dependence being testosterone, seven days' imprisonment.
97The base sentence is the sentence on Charge 18. Two months of the sentences on Charges 2, 5, 7, 10 and 11 and three months of the sentences on Charges 13 and 16 are to be served cumulatively upon themselves and upon the base sentence. The other sentences of imprisonment are to be served concurrently and the total effective sentence is 41 months' imprisonment.
98On indictment N10505790, I will sentence you as follows.
99On Charge 1, a charge of aggravated burglary, four years' imprisonment.
100On Charge 2, a charge of theft, three months' imprisonment.
101On Charge 3, a charge of theft, three months' imprisonment.
102On Charge 4, a charge of making a threat to kill, 12 months' imprisonment.
103On Charge 5, a charge of making a threat to inflict serious injury, nine months' imprisonment.
104On Charge 6, a charge of possessing a drug of dependence, 14 days' imprisonment.
105On Charge 7, a charge of negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime, one month's imprisonment.
106On summary Charge 12, a charge of committing an indictable offence while on bail, one month's imprisonment.
107The sentence on Charge 1 is the base sentence. Nine months of the sentence on Charge 4 and the entire sentence on the summary Charge 12, are to be served cumulatively upon themselves and the base sentence. The total effective sentence on this indictment is four years and 10 months' imprisonment. Eighteen months of the total effective sentence on indictment C2114837 is to be served cumulatively upon the total effective sentence on this indictment.
108The overall total effective sentence is six years and four months' imprisonment. I will set a non-parole of four years and three months' imprisonment.
109Mr Macklin, in relation to indictment C2114837, excluding today, you have spent 56 days in custody. For indictment N10505790, there are 738 days of pre-sentence detention. For convenience, I will declare the overall period of pre-sentence of 795 days as time served under my sentence.
6AAA
110If you had pleaded not guilty to these charges, but had been found guilty after a trial, I would have sentenced you to an overall total effective sentence of eight and a half years' imprisonment and fixed a non-parole period of five and a half years' imprisonment.
Disposal order
111I will make the disposal order in the terms of the draft.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
8
0