Director of Public Prosecutions v McPherson

[2022] VCC 930

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-21-00425

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JAYDEN MCPHERSON

---

JUDGE:	Her Honour Judge Hassan
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 March and 25 May 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 June 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v McPherson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 930

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:              Sentence — intentionally causing injury — intentionally causing serious injury — aggravated carjacking — criminal damage by fire — arson — unlicensed driving — failing to render assistance after an accident — careless driving — plea of guilty — category 1 offence — category 2 offence — special reason — stabbing — victim impact statement — COVID-19 — criminal record — criminal history — moral culpability — drug abuse — alcohol abuse — disadvantaged childhood — family violence — attention deficit hyperactivity disorder — personality disorder — impaired mental functioning — imprisonment

Legislation Cited:      Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

Cases Cited:Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Lawrence (2004) 10 VR 125; May-Jordan v The Queen [2017] VSCA 30; R v McKee (2003) 138 A Crim R 88; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169

Sentence:                  Total effective sentence of 8 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 5 years and 7 months

Section 6AAA declaration: total effective sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of 8 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms M Sargent	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms H Anderson	Valos Black & Associates

HER HONOUR:

1Jayden McPherson, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of intentionally causing injury, for which the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment of 10 years, one charge of intentionally causing serious injury, for which the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment of 20 years, one charge of aggravated carjacking, for which the maximum penalty is 25 years, and one charge of criminal damage by fire, arson, for which the maximum penalty is 15 years.

2You have also pleaded guilty to related summary offences of unlicensed driving, for which the maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment; for failing to render assistance after an accident, for which the maximum penalty is, for a first offence, 14 days, and one month’s imprisonment for a subsequent offence, which is the case in respect of you; and careless driving, the maximum penalty for a first offence is six penalty units and 12 penalty units for a subsequent offence, again which is the case here for you.

3Aggravated carjacking is a category 1 offence under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), and the Court is required to impose a custodial sentence with a non-parole period of not less than three years unless a special reason exists to avoid the mandatory application of the relevant sentencing provisions.

4The charge of intentionally causing serious injury is a category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), and the Court must impose a custodial sentence unless a special reason exists.

5Tendered on the plea as exhibit 1 was a ‘Summary of Prosecution Opening’, which fully sets out the circumstances of your offending.

6In brief, the circumstances of your offending were as follows. On 5 October 2020 at about 5:00am, the victim, Mr Karem Aktakas, drove home from work in his blue Hyundai Elantra sedan. He parked outside his home in Smith Street, South Melbourne. Mr Aktakas was sitting in his car, having an after-work drink, which is what he used to do to avoid waking his wife and son who were sleeping inside the house, when at around 5:50am you approached his driver’s side window, which was wound down. You held a knife to his face and demanded that he get out of the car. Mr Aktakas estimated the knife was around 20 cm long. Mr Aktakas got out of his car and attempted to disarm you by grabbing at your right arm. You were holding the knife in your right hand. He managed to grab your right shirt sleeve and in response you stabbed him in his body three times to the chest and the abdomen, and that is charge 1, intentionally cause injury.

7Mr Aktakas was in pain and was in fear that you would kill him. He managed to reach back into his car and grab a glass bottle, which he swung at your head, which you had covered with the hood of your jumper. The bottle connected with your head and shattered. You and Mr Aktakas began to wrestle, with Mr Aktakas continuing to try and control your right arm, but he lost his grip and you stabbed him in his left eye with sufficient force to knock him backwards, and that is charge 2, intentionally cause serious injury.

8Mr Aktakas was now in excruciating pain and could not see. He fell to the ground, and you continued to either punch or kick him. You demanded his car keys and he indicated to you that the keys were in the ignition. You drove away in his car, and that is charge 3, aggravated carjacking.

9About 10–15 seconds after that, Mr Aktakas’ wife came out of the house, and he asked her to call the police and an ambulance. She saw that his face was covered in blood and that one of his eyes was protruding out of his face.

10At approximately 6:00am, you drove Mr Aktakas’ car in a westerly direction on the M1 Freeway, just before the West Gate Bridge. The road was busy, and it was wet.

11Rodney McLeod was driving his van in the far right lane at 80 km/h. You drove on the left side of his van and hit the side of it and continued to drive, and that is the incident which is the basis of all the related summary offences.

12Mr McLeod estimated that you were travelling in excess of 100 km/h and observed you trying to weave in and out through the traffic. The collision caused minor damage to the front left guard of Mr McLeod’s van.

13You continued driving until you stopped at the top of Imperial Avenue, just off the Western Ring Road in Sunshine North. You parked the car on an embankment at approximately 8:41am.

14CCTV footage from a nearby factory shows you open the driver’s door of the car and ignite something near the front of the car before exiting it and walking to the rear for a short time, and that is the charge of arson.

15The footage then shows you walk approximately 70 m away and set something else on fire in the gutter. The CCTV footage depicts the car burning. It depicts it being fully engulfed in flames within a few minutes of you leaving the scene.

16Police attended at Smith Street, South Melbourne, with the first responders arriving at approximately 5:57am. Investigators linked you to the incident.

17The Metropolitan Fire Brigade attended the scene of the burnt out car at around 9:00am. Police arrived shortly thereafter. It had been completely destroyed by fire.

18The car was analysed by a forensic officer on 16 October 2020, who concluded that the fire started in the passenger compartment by the ignition of available materials, such as seats. The severity of the fire damage raised the possibility that flammable liquid had been present, but the same damage may have resulted from multiple points of ignition or an extended burn time, and there were no appropriate samples to collect for further examination. The source of the ignition was not determined but the probable source was a match or cigarette lighter, given there were no obvious sources of accidental ignition.

19Mr Aktakas was treated by paramedics on the scene and was taken to the Alfred Hospital. Paramedics noticed that his left eye had been significantly damaged and his right eye was closed over by swelling. He remained at the hospital until 10 October 2020.

20As a result of your offending, he suffered:

(a)   a wound to the left side of his chest and two smaller wounds on his stomach (charge 1 — intentionally cause injury);

(b)   a fractured left cheekbone (charge 2 — intentionally cause serious injury); and

(c)   a stab wound to his left eye (charge 2 — intentionally cause serious injury).

21The stab wound to his left eye went through to the back of the eye socket and hit an artery, which caused his right eye to protrude. Mr Aktakas receives ongoing specialist medical care for his eyes. He continues to have no vision out of his right eye.

22You were arrested on 28 October 2020 at an address in the Highett/Mentone area. You were taken to the Dandenong police station. You refused to engage with police and were not interviewed.

23Turning now to your plea of guilty, this matter resolved by way of a guilty plea entered at a committal case conference on 1 March 2021. This is an early plea which has significant utilitarian value in the context of the ongoing delays in the administration of criminal justice in this State caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. I take your early plea of guilty into account in sentencing you and I give it the full mitigatory weight which attaches to it as discussed in the case of Worboyes v The Queen.[1] I also accept that your guilty plea is indicative of some remorse on your part.

[1] [2021] VSCA 169.

24Mr Aktakas has made a victim impact statement. He says he has developed post-traumatic stress disorder and depression and anxiety. He says, since your attack on him, he has not been able to work and has no source of income. He says he has lost his car and all the items that were in it, including a number of tools. Mr Aktakas says he is paranoid about people and has lost friends. He says he is smoking and drinking more and is worried about his future.

25You have a criminal record with multiple appearances in the Children’s Court from 2014 and appearances in the adult jurisdiction from 2017. You have multiple prior convictions for assaults, assaults with weapons, threat to inflict serious injury, armed robbery, robbery, intentionally cause injury, resisting police and emergency workers, assaulting police and emergency workers, breaching conditions of bail and breaching conditions of community correction orders.

26You have spent much of your young life in custody. You were released from your last stint in prison on 3 October 2020. That is only two days before the offences for which you now are to be sentenced.

27Turning to the objective gravity of the offending, this was very serious offending. First, you had only been released from custody two days earlier. This is directly relevant not only to the application of the sentencing principles of specific deterrence and community protection, but also bears directly on my assessment of your moral culpability.

28Secondly, you set upon a defenceless man who was alone at night, just taking a moment to relax in his car after the completion of his night shift.

29Thirdly, you were armed with a large knife which you used to threaten your victim and to cause him injury and serious injury.

30Fourthly, you stabbed your victim repeatedly.

31Fifthly, you stabbed him in the left eye, and he is now blind in the right eye. I accept the submission of your counsel, Ms Anderson, that you were drug and alcohol affected when you offended and that while your plea of guilty acknowledges that you intended to cause serious injury, you did not intend the full consequences of your actions. However, the fact remains that it is you who has caused Mr Aktakas’ blindness in the right eye, and the emotional and psychological difficulties which have accompanied such a debilitating and devastating injury. The severe consequences suffered by Mr Aktakas are relevant to sentence, although I must not allow this consideration to swamp all other relevant considerations.

32Sixthly, the stab in the eye must have been excruciatingly painful at the time it occurred, and it was in this context when Mr Aktakas was in this condition that you continued to threaten and assault him and stole his car.

33I regard your offending, both in respect of the charge of intentionally causing serious injury and the aggravated carjacking, as to be high-range examples of these offences and your moral culpability to be high.

34As for your subsequent driving and your burning of the car, I can only attribute this wantonly dangerous and destructive behaviour to your inebriated condition.

35I turn now to consider your personal circumstances, and in outlining your background, I rely upon the submissions of your counsel, Ms Anderson, and the various reports that were tendered on your behalf at the plea.

36You were born in May 1998, and you are presently 24 years old and were 22 years old when you committed these offences. You were born in Sunshine, and you have three older siblings. You witnessed and experienced severe family violence during your childhood. You witnessed family violence between your mother and your father. Your father on one occasion broke your mother’s eye socket and was sent to gaol.

37Your mother ultimately separated from your father and re-partnered. You did not get along with your mother’s new partner and you told Ms Laura Fleming, who prepared a psychological report dated 15 March 2021, that you were ‘kicked out’ of the home, although Ms Fleming notes it appears that, in fact, all the children including you were removed from your mother’s care by the Department of Health and Human Services.

38You went to live with your sister when you were 15 years old. You began using and abusing multiple drugs, including methamphetamine, GHB, marijuana and alcohol.

39You only attended school until year 9, when you were expelled for poor behaviour. You have poor literacy. You have no real employment history, only having ever obtained some intermittent and casual work. Your life since your mid-teens has been one of drug addiction, homelessness and gaol.

40Ms Anderson notes in her written submissions that since 26 November 2016, you have spent 1,345 days in custody, and that includes the time served in relation to this matter up to and including the plea date, which was in March. It is, on my calculation, nearly four years in custody during a period of just over five years.

41Numerous reports were tendered addressing your mental health. The report of Ms Fleming, to which I have already referred, states that you reported to her a childhood diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (‘ADHD’) for which you were medicated. It was her view that you pose a moderate to high risk of recidivism given your ADHD, which is a treatable but static condition, your criminal history, your history of substance abuse, your poor educational and employment history, and your inadequate social supports and connections. She was of the opinion that prison would weigh more heavily upon you than someone without your mental health difficulties and concluded, ‘Any custodial sentence for Mr McPherson should also incorporate a long period of support and supervision after his release to support him to transition between prison and the community’.

42You told Ms Fleming you had little memory of your offending because you had been using alcohol and ice. She said you expressed remorse for your conduct and you told her you hoped to have the opportunity to apologise to the victim.

43There was a psychiatric report by Dr Rajan Darjee, consultant forensic psychiatrist, dated 28 February 2022. Dr Darjee met with you on 8 February 2022. Dr Darjee gives the opinion,

The diagnoses which apply to him are ADHD, severe personality disorder and substance misuse disorder. He appears to have had ADHD since early childhood and to continue to be affected by this as an adult with evidence of restlessness, distractibility, and impulsivity. ADHD is often, as in his case, comorbid with conduct disorder in childhood, and this combination not uncommonly leads to personality disorder and substance misuse in adulthood.

44Dr Darjee goes on to say,

His significant adverse childhood experiences of being physically abused, witnessing violence, failing at school, being abandoned by his parents, also very likely led to the emotional, behavioural and interpersonal difficulties he had as a child, which were the precursors of his severe personality disorder as an adult.

45Dr Darjee assessed you as needing treatment for your drug and alcohol misuse, medication for your ADHD and treatment to address your offending. Dr Darjee was of the view that if you returned to the community soon, you would likely destabilise and quickly reoffend. You told Dr Darjee that you could not remember much about your offending, that you had been drinking and taking drugs, including methamphetamine, cannabis and GHB. He concluded, unlike Ms Fleming, that you do not have a mental condition likely to deteriorate in custody. He concluded on the other hand that the structured routine may be beneficial to you.

46An addendum report was prepared by Dr Darjee dated 3 March 2022, it seems, to further address his conclusion that your mental health was not likely to deteriorate in custody. Dr Darjee reiterated that conclusion in his addendum report.

47Finally, a neuropsychological report was prepared by Dr Matt Treeby dated 10 May 2022. Dr Treeby assessed you on 11 April 2022. Dr Treeby reports that you were raised in a disadvantaged and chaotic household marred by parental neglect, family violence, a lack of structure and parental substance misuse.

48Dr Treeby says of your background, ‘Mr McPherson has a history of complex trauma which would have compromised the development of aspects of his psychosocial, personality, and cognitive development’. Dr Treeby notes, consistent with Ms Anderson’s submission, that you have spent the vast majority of your adulthood in a custodial setting due to repeat offending.

49Dr Treeby reviewed the reports of Ms Fleming and Dr Darjee. He also notes that you have reported to him that you have had a history of experiencing psychotic symptoms and you attempted suicide at 17. Dr Treeby could find no support for these assertions in any medical records, and notes that you have no history of contact with any community mental health services.

50Dr Treeby was asked to consider specifically whether, given your reports of concussion-type injuries in the context of altercations, you have a cognitive impairment or acquired brain injury. His conclusion was that you did not. He concluded that you have low overall intellectual function with longstanding cognitive limitations. In particular, he noted what he described as ‘executive dysfunction’ that manifested in lack of problem solving ability and lack of logical reasoning, and a consequent loss of control and resort to aggression and ill considered actions when confronted with difficulty. These cognitive difficulties, he noted, are exacerbated when you are drug or alcohol affected.

51You told Dr Treeby you were substance affected when you offended. He found you to have a diagnosis of a specific learning disorder in respect of your reading and noted that you had dyslexia and your literacy was only at a grade 3 primary school level.

52He stated that it was his impression that you continue to satisfy the diagnostic criteria for ADHD in adulthood, and that you met the diagnostic criteria of an anti-social personality disorder and substance abuse disorder in respect of amphetamines and cannabis. He stated you presented with multiple risk factors for recidivism and concurred with the opinion of Dr Darjee that there was no clear indication that your cognitive impairment would make serving a custodial term more onerous or would lead to a deterioration of your condition.

53I turn now to the submissions of counsel, and I begin with the submissions of the defence. Ms Anderson, on your behalf, acknowledged that this was very serious offending which must attract a significant custodial sentence. She accepted that this must be the case even if a special reason could be demonstrated to avoid the mandatory application of s 10A of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) in respect of the offence of aggravated carjacking and the mandatory effect of s 5(2H) in respect of the offence of intentionally causing serious injury.

54In mitigation, Ms Anderson relied upon your plea of guilty. She noted, over and above your plea, you had expressed remorse to the various clinicians. She relied upon your youth as an important sentencing consideration. You are still only 24. She submitted it is a real concern that you will become institutionalised. She submitted that this offending only occurred two to three days after your release from custody, but she submitted that you had been released without any kind of effective support, and so quickly relapsed into drug use and reoffending.

55Ms Anderson submitted that your offending was not premeditated but was opportunistic and needed to be seen in the context of the rapid decline in your mental health upon your release from custody. She submitted that while the seriousness of your offending meant your youth and rehabilitation should be given less weight, still, that does not extinguish the need to try and foster your rehabilitation.

56She submitted Bugmy v The Queen principles were engaged in sentencing you, that is, your experience of deprivation and abuse during your childhood and formative years was relevant to my assessment of your moral culpability.[2] Your background has played a significant and detrimental role in shaping your personality and responses and, as a consequence, your subjective culpability cannot be equated with someone who has had the benefit of a loving and stable home and a good education with all its consequential benefits.

[2] (2013) 249 CLR 571 (‘Bugmy’).

57Although conceding the necessity of a custodial sentence, Ms Anderson did submit that a special reason was made out on the basis of your impaired intellectual functioning, as detailed in the tendered reports. She submitted the material established that you had demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that at the time of the commission of the offences, you had impaired mental functioning which substantially and materially reduced your moral culpability.

58She relied, in particular, on Dr Treeby’s report, which she submitted established that your impaired reasoning and impulse control, although exacerbated by drug and alcohol use, was causally linked to your offending and is therefore relevant to any assessment of your moral culpability.

59I interpose to note that the exemption does not apply to impaired mental functioning caused substantially by self-induced intoxication under the legislation.[3]

[3] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5(2HA), 10A(2A).

60Ms Anderson made the alternative submission that even if I was not satisfied your impaired mental functioning substantially and materially reduces your moral culpability as required by the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) to demonstrate a special reason, still, R v Verdins principles were engaged in moderation of sentence.[4] She submitted your mental health was causally linked to your offending, reducing your moral culpability to some degree less than ‘substantially and materially’, and that you were not an appropriate vehicle for the full application of general deterrence.

[4] (2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’).

61There was no submission made that Verdins limbs 5 and 6 were engaged, given the opinions of Dr Darjee and Dr Treeby.

62Ms Anderson also relied on the current difficult conditions in prison caused by the measures in place to address the COVID-19 pandemic. She acknowledged that you have a relevant prior criminal history and that the principles of specific and general deterrence, denunciation, and community protection were all engaged in sentencing you. But, she submitted, given your youth and all matters raised in mitigation, and mindful of the principle of totality, I should impose a sentence that would not be crushing but offered some optimism in the future.

63In response, Ms Sargent, who appeared to prosecute, submitted that this was very serious offending and a high-range example of both the offences of intentionally causing serious injury and aggravated carjacking. She submitted it called for a significant custodial sentence.

64She acknowledged that Bugmy principles were engaged but submitted that there was no application of Verdins principles in your case, and no exception was made out to the mandatory provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), given your drug and alcohol use.

65She acknowledged that youth was an important sentencing consideration and rehabilitation remained a sentencing consideration, but she referred me to the Court of Appeal case of May-Jordan v The Queen.[5] In this case, the appellant submitted to the Court of Appeal that it is only where the offence is both particularly serious and persistent that an offender’s youth does not apply in the same way it would in other cases.

[5] [2017] VSCA 30.

66In that case, and in response to that submission, the Court of Appeal held that

the offender’s youth will always be an important factor; but its importance and force cannot help but be affected by other sentencing considerations which are likely to include either the seriousness of the offending or its persistence or both.[6]

[6] Ibid [39] (Weinberg and Ferguson JJA).

67Youth and rehabilitation must

take a ‘back seat’ to specific and general deterrence where crimes of wanton and unprovoked viciousness … are involved, particularly where … the perpetrator has been given previous chances to control his aggressive habits. This is because the offending is of such a nature and so prevalent that general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation of the conduct must be emphasised.[7]

[7] Ibid [35], quoting DPP (Vic) v Lawrence (2004) 10 VR 125, 132 [22] (Batt JA).

68Ms Sargent submitted on the topic of remorse that you had expressed some remorse but had also on occasion given contradictory and self-serving accounts invoking self-defence.

69I turn now to my conclusion and the application of sentencing principles. This was, Mr McPherson, a vicious and unprovoked attack. I have already detailed its very many objectively serious features. I reject the submission of your counsel that your impaired mental functioning constitutes a special reason and an exemption, in particular to the mandatory application of s 10AD of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) in respect of the offence of aggravated carjacking and the mandatory imposition of a sentence with a non-parole period of at least three years.

70Your offending, in my view, was inextricably and significantly linked to your drug and alcohol use on the night and you are therefore precluded from relying upon the exemption in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). In any event, even without the mandatory Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) provisions in respect of aggravated carjacking and intentionally causing serious injury, your offending is so serious, it calls for a significant custodial sentence, and indeed this was not disputed by your counsel.

71I accept Bugmy principles are engaged and work to moderate your moral culpability but weighted against this is the obvious seriousness of your offending, and your inability to refrain from offending, which enlivens the sentencing principles of specific deterrence and community protection in sentencing you.

72I accept there is some modest application of Verdins limb 1, given your cognitive difficulties. Your offending was fuelled by your drug and alcohol consumption, but you have been addicted from an early age and I am mindful of the authorities allowing for some mitigation of moral culpability when drug addiction commences at an early age and is connected with mental health difficulties and criminal offending.[8]

[8] See R v McKee (2003) 138 A Crim R 88, 94 [21] (Vincent JA).

73I am not persuaded that Verdins operates to reduce your suitability as a vehicle of general deterrence. In my view, your cognitive difficulties are not such that a message cannot be sent by the sentence I impose, that violent, unprovoked offending in the context of alcohol and drug abuse will result in stern punishment.

74I take into account the difficult conditions in prison. I regard your prospects of rehabilitation as demonstrably poor and I accept the expert opinion that without programs and structures in place to treat you and to support you, you will quickly resort to reoffending. Indeed, this is precisely what has happened here.

75Your own situation is very bleak and, indeed, even a tragic one. You strike me as an isolated individual. You are without effective support and you have wasted a large part of your young life in custody, but your offending behaviour has been unrelenting and the offending for which I must now sentence you is quite simply shocking and appalling and you should be deeply ashamed of what you have done.

76The sentencing principles of specific and general deterrence, denunciation, and community protection are all engaged in sentencing you. You are a young man. I can but attempt to foster your rehabilitation by allowing for a long period of parole, which may act to bridge the difficult period you will inevitably face when you are released from custody back into the community.

77Balancing all the various and often competing sentencing considerations as best I can, I intend to sentence you as follows.

78On charge 1, intentionally causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

79On charge 2, intentionally causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.

80On charge 3, aggravated carjacking, you are convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

81On charge 4, arson, you are convicted and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment.

82On the summary charge of driving unlicensed, you are convicted and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment.

83On the charge of failing to stop after an accident, you are convicted and sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment.

84On the summary charge of careless driving, you are convicted and discharged.

85Charge 2 is the base charge. I direct that one year of the sentence on charge 3, six months of the sentence on charge 4, and one month of the sentence on the summary charge of unlicensed driving are to be served cumulatively upon the sentence on charge 2, and upon each other. That makes a total effective sentence of eight years and seven months.

86I am directing that you serve a non-parole period of five years and seven months.

87Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), had you pleaded not guilty, you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of eight years.

88Pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), I declare that you have served 597 days of the sentence that I have passed upon you, and I direct that that be entered into the records of the Court.

89The offence of aggravated carjacking is a serious motor vehicle offence. There is a mandatory licence disqualification or cancellation period of two years. I make that mandatory cancellation or disqualification for the two-year period starting today.

90I make the forfeiture order.

- - -