Director of Public Prosecutions v McLean

[2022] VCC 2290

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT Melbourne

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

CR 22-00258

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

CASSANDRA McLEAN

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 November 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 December 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v McLean
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 2290

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:              Sentence – Pleas of guilty – Home invasion (2 charges) – False imprisonment – Theft – Escape from police officer – Summary charge – Possess cartridge ammunition – Co-accused – Offending pre-meditated and co-ordinated – Use of disguises – Period of offending short - Accused acted complicitly with co-accused – Victims bound, gagged and threatened with weapons – Relevant criminal history although this offending more serious than prior offending – History of drug and alcohol abuse since age 13 years - Accused suffered from deprived background – Chronic history of trauma with childhood marred by repeated abuse and violence – Expert opinion – Accused suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder – Vulnerable individual in need of high levels of case management – Accused currently suffers from irritability, reckless and self-destructive behaviour and hypervigilance

Cases Cited:Hogarth v The Queen [2012] VSCA 302; Akoka v The Queen [2017] VSCA 214; Cobiac v Liddy [1969] 119 CLR 257; Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571

Sentence: Convicted and sentenced to Total Effective Sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months’ imprisonment – 456 days’ imprisonment declared as having already been served – s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 declaration – Ancillary orders Disposal and Forfeiture

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr A. Buckland (Plea) Mr K. Marshall (Sentence)	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Radzaj	Ajak Associates

HER HONOUR:

1Cassandra McLean, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of home invasion, one charge of false imprisonment, one charge of theft and one charge of escape from police officer, as well as a summary charge of possessing cartridge ammunition.  The offence of home invasion has a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment, false imprisonment, 10 years' imprisonment, theft, 10 years' imprisonment and escape from a police officer five years' imprisonment.  The summary charge has a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units.

2I must have regard to the maximum penalties in sentencing you, as these reflect the seriousness with which parliament regards the offences.  Further in respect of the offence of home invasion, a sentence of imprisonment which is not to be served in combination with a Community Corrections Order is mandated by parliament in a case such as yours.

3Your offending was opened as follows.

4I was told that the home invasions involved two premises at the same address in Noble Park, being the main residence and a detached bungalow behind the main residence at 11 Marshall Street, Noble Park.

5

You were 27 years old at the time of the offending and your co-offender

Mr Bartkowski was 47 at the time.  Two unknown co-offenders entered a bungalow at the time and you and Mr Bartkowski entered the main residence.

6You plead guilty to Charge 2 on a complicity basis.  There was a fifth co-offender Metzi Ayubi, he was 47 at the timed, he acted as a lookout from the street.  You and your co-offenders were aware that there were people present at both premises and entered to steal property.  Once inside, you bound and gagged occupants before stealing property, including electronic goods and a car.  Subsequently, you briefly escaped custody on 13 September 2021.

7

In relation to the victims in this matter, on my calculation overall there were five.  Anh Nguyen who was 61 years old.  His on Ming Nguyen who was 32. 

Vi Nguyen who was 25.  A female friend of Vi Nguyen's, Fong Ngo, who also lived at the premises and a further victim Ty Hoi Tran, who was 36 at the time, who rented the bungalow at the ack of the premises from Anh Nguyen.

8Anh Nguyen's wife Ho Nguyen also lived at the main residence, however she was at work at the time that the offending occurred.  Anh Nguyen was the registered owner of a Honda CR-V SUV which was stolen in the course of the offending.

9The details of the offending are as follows.

10

On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at about 8 am you and Mr Bartkowski travelled to

11 Marshall Street, Noble Park

with an unknown male and female co-offender as well as Mr Ayubi.  It is alleged that you travelled together in a white Honda Getz driven by Bartkowski.  Ayubi also attended near the address and acted as a lookout.  Upon arrival, you and Bartkowski and the unknown co-offenders walked down the driveway and side of the house.  The occupants of the main residence Anh, Vi and Min Nguyen were all asleep in their respective bedrooms at this time.

11Ty Hoi Tran, who was in the bungalow was awake and sitting at her computer doing some study, you and Bartkowski forced entry into the main residence at the same time the two unknown co-offenders forced entry into the bungalow.

12In relation to Charge 2, which relates to the home invasion in the bungalow I was told that Ms Tran was sitting in her kitchen and working on her computer when she heard banging sounds from outside.  The unknown offenders then forced entry in to the bungalow and had a knife with them.  Ms Tran saw the door which had been locked, fling open and the co-offenders appear.  The unknown male was wearing a white cloth mask and was aggressive.  He walked towards her holding a knife and asked, 'Where is the gun?  Where is your husband' and 'How many inside'.  Ms Tran replied she did not have a gun or a husband.  The male then instructed her to put her hands behind her back and he bound them with grey tape.  He took out the knife and pointed it towards her chest.

13The unknown female was pacing around the room and appeared to be looking for something.  She moved some clothes and grabbed Ms Tran's computer screen, throwing it to the floor.  The male then told Ms Tran to open her mouth and he forced toilet paper into it, until she could not talk, before using grey duct tape to cover her mouth from ear to ear to prevent her from talking.  He then took two mobile phones from her kitchen table and told her to walk with him and his co-offender, escorting her from the bungalow to the main residence.

14

In relation to Charges 1, home invasion of the main residence, Charge 3, false imprisonment and Charge 4, theft, I was told that whilst the unknown

co-offenders entered the bungalow, you and Bartkowski forced opened and entered the backdoor of the main residence.  You had a hammer and Taser with you and Bartkowski was armed with a knife.  Vi Nguyen was asleep in her bedroom in the middle of the house when you and Bartkowski entered the room.  You told her to get out of the room.  You were holding a hammer in your right hand at this time. 

15Vi Nguyen complied with your demand and went to the front living room.  You stayed with her.  Vi Nguyen then heard her friend Fong Ngo crying and begging before seeing Ms Ngo entering the living room.  Vi Nguyen saw you take out a black Taser with your left hand and you were making it operate. Vi Nguyen could hear the noise it was making and Vi Nguyen believed you did this to show that it was working in order to have her and the other victims comply with your demands.  You were holding the hammer in your other hand. 

16Just before this Ms Ngo had been awakened by a loud noise and heard Bartkowski shouting 'Get up now'.  He threatened her with a knife in his left hand and a Taser in his right hand.  Bartkowski picked up her laptop - her HP laptop and her iPhone and led Ngo out to the living room where she saw you standing over Vi Nguyen with a hammer in front of the door and you were also watching out the windows.  Ms Ngo and Vi Nguyen then heard Min Nguyen screaming from his bedroom, it sounded like Bartkowski was fighting or struggling with him. 

17Min Nguyen had been sleeping in his room, when he was awakened by Bartkowski punching him in the head on his right temple.  He then saw Bartkowski who was holding a silver knife which was about 20-30 centimetres long and looked like a kitchen knife. Bartkowski's face was covered by a cloth mask.  He demanded money and hit Min Nguyen with his left hand using a closed fist.  He continued to demand money and threatened to stab him.  Bartkowski pulled Min Nguyen to the lounge where his sister Vi and Fong were.  Vi Nguyen observed blood dripping from Min Nguyen's mouth.

18

At around the same time Ms Tran was brought into the living room of the house by the unknown co-offenders.  Min Nguyen was placed on the floor between the couches where Vi Nguyen, Fong and Tran were sitting.  The unknown male was blocking the entrance.  The phones of the victims were taken by you and your

co-offenders and they were told not to call for help.

19The unknown female co-offender took over from you and you then went through the bedrooms looking for items to steal.  The unknown male was holding a knife which looked like a sickle.  He grabbed Min Nguyen's ear and threatened him that if he did not cooperate or tell him where the money was, he would cut off his ears.  The unknown female was described by the victims as nice and less aggressive than the rest of you.  She told Min Nguyen and the other occupants of the room, that if they cooperated and they, being the offenders including you got what they wanted no one would get hurt.

20One of the offenders repeatedly asked where is the key, however none of the victims responded to this.  Inside the front lounge room Ms Tran remained bound.  The unknown male went to the kitchen of the main residence and returned with duct tape and cloth and bound Min Nguyen's hands behind his back with tape, then covered his mouth with the cloth and tape.  He then bound Vi Nguyen in the same manner.

21Anh Nguyen was asleep inside his bedroom in the main residence when awaken by the sound of a female crying and an unknown voice speaking in English asking where the money was.  He became frightened by this and hid in his bed for a couple of minutes before creeping out of his bedroom towards the lounge room, where he saw two men, one of whom he suspected he had seen before, this male would have been Bartkowski I am told.

22

Both males had their faces covered with masks or scarves.  He returned to his bedroom, crept through his window and ran across the road to neighbour's house and called for help.  The call was made at 8.17 am.  Whilst waiting for police

Anh Nguyen saw one of the males, apparently Bartkowski carrying items from the house and loading them into Anh Nguyen's car.

23Inside the front lounge room of the premises one of the male offenders demanded that the victims get down on their knees with their back to each other and faces down to the ground.  They were instructed to count to 200.  The offenders then left in Anh Nguyen's car.  During the incident a number of items were stolen, 30 in total, however four of these were the subject of a charge of handling stolen goods or deal with suspected - goods suspected to be stolen - sorry, suspected proceeds of crime charges and therefore do not form part of Charge 4.

24The items stolen comprised, mobile phones, computers, iPads, victims' passports, hard drives as well as the car.

25On 28 July 2021 multiple search warrants were executed at 26 Hopkins Street, Dandenong, which was where you and Mr Bartkowski were living.  Both of you were arrested at different times that day.

26During searches of the premises police found and ultimately seized multiple items belonging to the victims of the home invasion.  Police also found a steak knife, hammer, black face mask and disposable gloves in Mr Bartkowski's car.  On the same day police executed search warrants at 11B Ross Street, Dandenong which was the address of a Stacey Ayres who was a suspect in relation to the offending.

27Multiple items belonging to the victims of the home invasion were found at this address.  You were interviewed by police and denied involvement in the incident.  You said that you used to live in the bungalow at the back of the property.  You were charged and remanded in relation to items found during the search.  You were released from custody in respect of those matters on 6 August 2021.

28

On 7 September 2021, the stolen car was recovered by police, a Gemmy bar was found among other items in the car.  The basis for Charge 5 is that on

13 September 2021 at about 10.30 am police attended to 38 Birdwood Avenue, Dandenong, in respect of a unrelated matter.  You were at that address and were re-arrested in relation to the home invasion.  Once police had finished processing the premises, you were given the chance to let your dog out of the laundry into the backyard.  You were uncuffed to enable you to do this and you entered the house alone due to the aggressive nature of the dog. 

29You retrieved the dog from the bathroom, letting his loose in the house, which initially prevented police from being able to enter.  You then ran out the back door of the property and over the back fence.  After a short search you were found hiding next to a car in the front yard of a nearby property and you were taken back into custody.

30You were taken to Dandenong police station.  Upon arrival your black handbag was searched and found to contain a 6.5 by 55 millimetre ammunition round.  This gives rise to the summary charge of possessing cartridge ammunition without licence.

31At about 1 pm on this day, you were re-interviewed regarding the home invasion.  You made full admissions of being involved in the incident.  You said that you had had some issues with your husband who used to live in the bungalow and who had just disappeared.  You said you thought the people who lived there were related to him and in on it, so the home invasion was to get revenge upon them.

32You said you jemmied open the back door of the address with a crowbar and brought all the victims out of their rooms into the communal lounge room.  You were wearing a hooded jacket and you may have been wearing a mask.  You said that you had a Taser with you when you entered the house and you were prepared to use it if necessary.  You said that you put it down.  You also said you left the address in the victim's car.

33At about 2 pm that same day an undercover operative was present in the communal holding area of the Dandenong police station cells with you after your interview.  You spoke with the operative saying that you were in police custody from an aggravated home invasion.  You said that you, your boyfriend and your friend Stacey Ayres went to an address which was affiliated with your ex-partner, crowbarring the door, threatened the victims with Tasers and hammers and tied them up.

34You were charged and remanded in custody and as at the plea hearing date you have been in custody for 434 days.

35Ms McLean your offending is most serious and deserving of a punishment which is just in all of the relevant circumstances and your conduct must be strongly denounced.  You and your co-offenders brazenly entered the homes of a number of victims, most of whom were asleep at the time.  You and your co-offenders behaved in the most terrifying of ways towards the victims who are entitled to feel safe in their own homes.  You entered their premises armed with weapons and you personally indicated a preparedness to us the Taser in particular by activating it in front of the defenceless victims. 

36The aggravating features of your offending are as follows.  (a) you entered the homes of the victims in numbers, that is with three other co-offenders; (b) your offending was premeditated and coordinated; and (c) a number of you were wearing disguises to avoid being identified.  The false imprisonment offending is also a serious example of this offence.  In circumstances where a number of victims were bound and gagged and threatened with weapons.  While I accept that you were not present when Ms Tran was initially offended against, it is evident that upon her being brought into the main house you would have been aware of her treatment by your co-offenders insofar as being restrained was concerned, and indeed similar treatment was metered out to the other occupants of the main residence.

37

In sentencing you I am mindful the specific actions that you took in respect of the offending, even though you acted complicitly with co-offenders.  As you might expect, the impact on the victims has been immense.  Two of the victims have provided victim impact statements, but it takes no imagination to know that each of the victims would have been terrified by the ordeal to which you and you

co-offenders subjected them.

38Vi Nguyen said that she continues to feel anxiety about what happened to her and is now hypervigilant.  She keeps thinking that something bad will happen to her and she finds it very difficult now to trust people.  She also spoke of you taking her hard drive, which deprived her of a number of pieces of writing including assignments which was hard work, which she feared might be washed down the drain if you had cleared the hard drive.

39At the time of her victim impact statement she had not had these returned to her.  She also lost her phone just before starting a new job which caused her some inconvenience.  She said that while she was waiting for a new phone, she had no way of the family contacting her which was quite daunting.  A good deal of money was spent on security and she had to take an unpaid day off to attend Magistrates' Court hearing as she was a casual worker.  She no longer felt safe in the mornings and late at night and when she is on her own.  Essentially she is still haunted by your offending.

40In Fong Ngo's victim impact statement, Ms Ngo said that she has felt more anxious about being alone and was also hypervigilant.  She said that it was difficult to recompose herself and settle emotionally, so that she could carry out her work duties, whilst waiting for the outcome of the police investigation.  She was also worried about the safety of her housemates as well as herself.  She said that initially after the offending it was very challenging for her to sleep and she needed to reach out to her circle of support in order to debrief as she had never experienced anything like this before.

41Ms McLean these were very real effects of your offending upon the victims and are matter which I must take into account in sentencing you.  You have a relevant criminal history, albeit that the offending for which I now sentence you, is of a more serious nature than any prior offending.

42In January 2013 you were dealt with for intentionally causing injury and possessing cannabis.  You received a without conviction adjourned undertaking, which involved you completing a number of programs and counselling sessions.  In August 2019, you were dealt with for possessing cannabis and received another adjourned undertaking without conviction.  In November 2019, you were convicted of assault with a weapon and carrying the controlled weapon without excuse, and ordered to undergo a 12 month Community Corrections Order with conditions, including treatment and rehabilitation for drug and alcohol abuse and mental health.

43Although your criminal history is certainly not the most extensive these courts have ever seen, it does have relevance to the offending for which I now sentence you.  In sentencing you, I have factored in that the offending in which you were involved endured for about 15 minutes.  Whilst this must have seemed like a very long time for the victims, it is to be contrasted to situations where offending of this nature has lasted for a good deal longer.

44In sentencing you I allow for a fairly significant discount in the sentence you would otherwise receive, due to the stage at which you pleaded guilty in circumstances where, although you appeared at contested committal hearing, no witnesses were cross-examined on your behalf and you had also made full admissions to police at your second record of interview.  In taking the course that you did you saved the witnesses the time and trouble of giving evidence at contested proceedings at your behest and you have saved the community the time and expense of running these.  Also, I allow for a pulpable discount in the sentence you would otherwise receive due to your preparedness to facilitate justice during the COVID-19 pandemic and thereby contributing to the reduction of backlog of trials that this court has to deal with.

45In sentencing you I have factored in that this is your first substantive period in gaol and that you have already served a period in conditions subjected to COVID-19 restrictions from time to time, and it may well be the case that you are further subjected to such restrictions in the future.  And therefore you have and will, in all likelihood, endure a harsher form of custody in this way.

46In sentencing you, I take into account your background and I accept that it was an extremely deprived one.  As asserted in your counsel's submissions, your childhood, adolescence and adult life have been marred by repeated instances of abuse, violence and trauma.  I was told that your biological father was violent and that your mother delivered twins prematurely, due to his kicking her in the stomach with both twins dying shortly after this. 

47You do not have any contact with your biological father.  Further I understand you were raised by your grandparents at one stage, but you were sexually molested repeatedly by another family member. 

48I understand you were educated to Year 8 level.  When you were 13 you started drinking alcohol almost daily and began smoking cannabis.  When you were 14 after an argument with a family member you accepted a life from a stranger who abducted you, tried to suffocate you and rape you.  The police became involved and you were treated at Monash Medical Centre.  Unfortunately, the turnover of therapists treating you put you off ongoing treatment. 

49After this incident you left school and turned to drugs including heroin.  You became addicted to heroin, however in spite of this you completed a hairdressing qualification.  When you were 16, you supported your heroin dependence with sex work, which unfortunately led you to become the victim of a rape at the hands of three men when you were only 17.

50

In December 2016, your partner of 10 years proposed marriage, however he was murdered a month after this.  After this incident you experienced suicidal ideation and intentionally overdosed on at least 10 occasions.  You began dated

Mr Bartkowski in late 2018.  He was gaoled between December 2018 and November 2020.  During this period you were homeless and returned to sex work.  In the lead up to the offending for which I now sentence you, you experienced several incidences of intimate partner violence.  When arrested on 28 July, you had two black eyes, apparently at the hands of Mr Bartkowski. 

51During the period that you committed the offences, you were using heroin and methylamphetamine on a daily basis, as well as several unprescribed medications.

52Dr Erin Cunningham provided a report which is dated September this year.  He said that you met the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder and that this stemmed from the trauma of your childhood, having been exposed to drug abuse and violence.  You presented with a history of drug abuse as a form of coping with your trauma and life stress.  He said that your drug abuse and association with drug abusing peers was directly related to your offending, but then underlying the risk factors, you presented with largely untreated post-traumatic stress disordered.

53He said that you presented as a vulnerable individual who struggled to maintain stability in the community.  He was of the view that you presented as a high risk needs individual in need of a high level of case management support and that you would struggle to maintain stability without this support.  Presenting with a chronic history of trauma and drug abuse with minimal periods of stability.  You said that ceasing drug abuse and association with drug abusing peers would be the main factors in decreasing your risk of re-offending.  He said that maintaining stability and engagement with rehabilitative supports would improve your prospects of rehabilitation.

54I note that the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder result in you presenting with negative alterations in your cognitions and mood in the form of negative thoughts about yourself and others.  I note that you present with marked arousal in the form of sleep disturbance, irritability and outbursts of anger, reckless and self-destructive behaviour and hypervigilance.

55I accept that the principles as set out in Bugmy apply, having said this it is noteworthy your criminal is fairly limited and that the offending for which I now sentence you is of a far more serious nature than offences which you have previously committed.  However, I allow for a fairly significant reduction in your moral culpability, the weight which attaches to imposition of a just punishment and the weight which would otherwise attach to specific and general deterrence.  On the other hand I must be concerned about the protection of the community, which is the other side of this coin.

56It was submitted to me that your cooperative second record of interview and willingness to plead guilty to the offences was indicative of your remorse.  While I accept that you have facilitated justice in these ways, I am not too convinced of your insight or remorse insofar as the victims in this matter are concerned.  I think this is a work in progress and your ability to feel empathy for the victims may well be tied up with your difficulties, which emanate from your upbringing and impairment of mental function, to which I have previously referred.

57I was told that you offended as you did as a vengeful attack upon people that you thought had something to do with a former partner's disappearance, however, in the summary of prosecution opening, there is no reference to you demanding to know what had become of your former partner and I note that you were intent on stealing items from the property, which is something that you and the others did.  In any event, behaving as you did if it was an act of vengeance it does not stand you in good light.

58Since being incarcerated you have maintained steady employment in horticulture and you have remained out of trouble in the prison system.  You have completed the Staying Out program through Caraniche as well as OH&S, and food handling courses.

59I understand that you intend to stay away from Bartkowski when you are released from gaol, however you are maintaining communication with him whilst in custody which is of concern.  I was told that you are drug free whilst in custody, although there were no urine screens which substantiated this, however I accept that it is the case that you are drug free.

60

I was told that you also suffered from Crohn's Disease and you have been hospitalised for that condition.  In terms of your drug use you reported to

Dr Cunningham that you were using point eight grams of heroin per day and injecting one to two points of methylamphetamine per day.  When speaking with Dr Cunningham you were prescribed 80 milligrams of methadone and were open to engaging with drug and alcohol support.  I understand that you attended a detox through YSAS when you were 15 years old.

61Dr Cunningham assessed you as being at moderate risk of future violent offending.

62In assessing your prospect of rehabilitation, I note that you have expressed a wish to continue in an administrative role in a plumbing business, which is a role that you had with Bartkowski before being imprisoned.  You have also said that you would like to continue with hairdressing when you return to the community.  In this regard I note that you have previously worked making wigs and gained a community service award from The Royal Melbourne Hospital in this regard which is a matter to your credit.

63You have also worked in other areas such as labouring work in factories and packing hampers.  However, you have been unemployed since December 2016.  I was told that you are supported by your mother and stepfather.  In view of all these matters as well as your current and prior offending, the state of your mental health, your history of addiction and ongoing challenges you experienced in choosing your peers, emanating from your deprived upbringing and drug abuse issues, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as being guardedly fair.

64If not for Bugmy considerations I would have placed more than moderate weight on specific deterrence and I make a fairly significant reduction in this because of Bugmy considerations.  I make a similar allowance in respect of the imposition of a just punishment.  If not for Bugmy, I would have placed strong weight on general deterrence in a bid to deter others from behaving as you have.  However, in view of the application of Bugmy principles in your case, I make a fairly significant discount in the weight attaching to general deterrence.  However, I have placed fairly strong weight on protection of the community and on denunciation.

65In sentencing you, I have allowed for the fact that any time in custody has been or will be harder for you because of your impairment of mental function and due to the fact that you suffer from Crohn's Disease as well as being subjected to the COVID-19 restrictions to which I have previously referred and I have also factored in that this is your first time in custody.

66In sentencing you, I have factored in current sentencing practice including the table of cases provided to me by the Crown.  Bearing in mind, this is but one factor to be taken into account in sentencing you and is not a controlling one.  I have also bore in mind the various denunciations of our Court of Appeal in respect of this type of offending in particular Hogarth v The Queen [2012] VSCA 302.

67Your counsel accepted a head sentence with a non-parole period was the only available sentence in your case but submitted that your circumstances warranted a shorter non-parole period that might otherwise be the case, submitting that your situation calls for an exercise of mercy, citing Akoka v The Queen [2017] VSCA 214 at paragraph 74 and Cobiac v Liddy [1969] 119 CLR 257 at 269.

68Having considered these submissions and all relevant matters in your case I have arrived at a sentence which in my view does justice to all relevant considerations and bearing in mind the seriousness of the offending.  I have done what I can in respect of the non-parole period.  I have also borne in mind your counsel's submission in respect of a limit in cumulation in particular between Charges 1 and 2, in view of the fact that they compromise the one course of offending.  However, it is also relevant that there are separate victims involved.

69You are convicted of each of the offences.  I make the disposal and forfeiture orders which were sought by the Crown and not opposed by you.  You are sentenced to the following periods of imprisonment.

70Charge 1, five years' imprisonment which will be the base sentence.

71Charge 2, four years' imprisonment.

72Charge 3, three years' imprisonment.

73Charge 4, 12 months' imprisonment.

74Charge 5, one months' imprisonment.

75Summary Charge 19, you are fined $100.

76I direct that six months from the sentence on Charge 2 and six months from the sentence on Charge 3, you serve cumulatively with each other and with the base sentence, but that otherwise the sentences be served concurrently with each other.

77This produces a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment and I direct that you serve three years six months before becoming eligible for parole.  I declare that you have already served 456 days which will be deducted from your sentence as being already served.

78Is there anything to raise?

79MR MARSHALL:  Not from the prosecution, Your Honour, no.

80MR RADZAJ: Section 6AAA Your Honour.

81HER HONOUR:  I'm sorry, I thought I'd said that.

82If not for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. 

83Thank you counsel.  Is there anything further?

84MR RADZAJ:  Nothing further, Your Honour.

85MR MARSHALL:  No.

86HER HONOUR:  All right, yes, thank you.  Did you want to have a chance to have a word with your client Mr Radzaj, or did you want to do that over the phone later one.

87MR RADZAJ:  If I could take that chance of that.  But if I could also perhaps just indicate for the record my thanks to Your Honour's associate for arranging the shift in time, it's greatly appreciated.

88HER HONOUR:  All right.

89MR RADZAJ:  If I could perhaps take some time just to talk to Ms McLean.

90HER HONOUR:  All right.  Thank you we'll adjourn the court and we'll leave so you can have a word with your client.

91MR RADZAJ:  Thank you.

92HER HONOUR:  Thank you.

- - -