Director of Public Prosecutions v Molfese
[2018] VSC 32
•14 February 2018
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2017 0027
S CR 2017 0245
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JOSEF MOLFESE |
---
JUDGE: | Jane Dixon J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 December 2017 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 February 2018 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Molfese |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VSC 32 – First Revision 19 February 2018 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Sentence following trial – Spontaneous offence in course of attempted armed robbery for drugs – Following conviction for murder, pleaded guilty to further charges of aggravated burglary, intentionally causing injury and theft occurring two days prior to murder – Drug related offending – Totality principle – Total effective sentence of 23 years and four months, with a non-parole period of 18 years and four months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr T Gyorffy QC and Mr J Shaw | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr M Thomas and Ms C Lynch | Papa Hughes Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Josef Molfese, on 29 June 2017 you were found guilty by a jury of the murder of Tung Thanh Trinh who was known as Ricky Trinh.[1] The murder was committed on 18 March 2016.
[1]Indictment G10840795.
Since the verdict was delivered, you also took steps to have the court dispose of some outstanding charges. You have now pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated burglary, one charge of intentionally causing injury and one charge of theft arising from a separate indictment.[2] These charges relate to your conduct on 16 March 2016.
[2]Indictment G10846968.
I will firstly deal with the factual background to the charge of murder.
Overview of circumstances of murder of Ricky Trinh
Ricky Trinh was killed as he was walking down Clarendon Street, South Melbourne with his girlfriend Natasha Lamb, at about 11.00 pm on 18 March 2016 having just been to the Coles supermarket at the Clarendon Centre.
Josef Molfese, you approached Ricky Trinh from behind, put a knife to his throat, and made a demand for him to hand over his drugs.[3]
[3]Trial transcript 74.
Ms Lamb, who was walking beside Ricky Trinh, went to grab the knife but withdrew her hand when her finger was cut. You had slashed Ricky Trinh’s throat with a knife that, according to Ms Lamb, had a curved blade. She observed Ricky Trinh falling to the ground.
You ran off at that point, leaving Ms Lamb to deal with the aftermath of your crime. Ambulance and police attended quickly but were unable to revive Trinh, whose throat had been cut from one side to the other. He died from his injuries shortly thereafter.
Detailed explanation of facts founding the charge of murder
Ricky Trinh was 47 years of age when he was killed. He had been a resident of South Melbourne for some years and was living in Coventry Street with his girlfriend Natasha Lamb. He was a street level dealer in hard drugs.
On 17 March 2016, you, Josef Molfese, had been in company with Carly Simms-Parsons and two other young men at Carly’s mothers flat in Iffla Street, South Melbourne. You went out for a while, but later returned and slept the night at Carly’s mother’s flat.
The following day, 18 March, Rikki Newton and Shaun Peterson met up with you and Carly Simms-Parsons and the group of you went to see about getting hold of some heroin.
The group went to Carla Joseph’s flat in the tower block at 200 Dorcas Street, and from there to Coles supermarket in the Clarendon Centre. Newton and Peterson were captured on CCTV leaving the Dorcas Street flats at 10.30 pm, and you and Simms-Parsons were shown immediately following them at 10.31 pm.
Simms-Parsons was carrying a notebook computer with her which was to be traded for heroin. You entered the Coles store with Simms-Parsons and Peterson at 10.34 pm.
Meanwhile, Ricky Trinh had left his home with Natasha Lamb and Troy Nelson on a quest to buy some ice-cream at Coles. Trinh, Lamb and Nelson all went in Troy Nelson’s prime mover which was driven to a parking spot in Clarendon Street just north of the intersection with Bank Street. Only Trinh and Lamb exited the truck and walked down to Coles. They entered the Clarendon Centre at 10.40 pm. Whilst in the store Simms-Parsons approached Ricky Trinh and spoke to him. She showed him the notebook computer hoping to swap it for drugs. Ricky Trinh said he might be able to help but suggested they meet a bit later at the home of an associate in South Melbourne.
Lamb and Simms-Parsons struck up a conversation as they left Coles and began walking along Clarendon Street in a southerly direction. CCTV footage shows you and Peterson also walking in the same direction and the pair of you paused on the corner of Clarendon Street and Dorcas Street, whereupon Peterson suddenly walked down Dorcas Street towards Bank Place and stood at the intersection of Bank Place and Dorcas Street. Bank Place is a laneway that runs along the rear of various premises that front onto Clarendon Street. Petersen pointed down the Bank Place laneway.
You, Josef Molfese, jogged past the Commonwealth Bank on the corner of Dorcas and Clarendon Streets and went down Dorcas street to enter the Bank Place laneway, still jogging.
Ricky Trinh had meanwhile left Coles through a side exit that led onto Dorcas Street.
Simms-Parsons separated from Natasha Lamb and walked down Dorcas Street towards the Anglican Church where your friend Jake Pascu’s car was parked. However, she quickly retreated after learning that you were no longer with the others, and she returned towards Clarendon Street and crossed the road.
Ricky Trinh re-joined Ms Lamb walking south along Clarendon Street back in the direction of where Nelson was waiting in the prime mover. It was as the pair approached the vicinity of the prime mover that you came up behind Ricky Trinh and made a demand for drugs at knifepoint.
You had come from Bank Street after following Bank Place through to Bank Street. You went west up Bank Street and turned right into Clarendon Street, positioning yourself to be able to approach Trinh from behind.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to rob Ricky Trinh at knife point and that, on the spur of the moment, you slashed Ricky Trinh’s throat, intending, at the very least, that really serious injury would occur. This finding is consistent with the jury verdict convicting you of murder.
After injuring Ricky Trinh with the knife, you fled towards the corner of Clarendon and Bank Streets, turned left and retreated the way you had come along Bank Place. You were captured on CCTV emerging from Bank Place in Dorcas Street at 10.59 pm, and you then joined up with your associates and jumped into Pascu’s car. One of the occupants of the car described you as having your head bowed and rocking back and forth when you got in the car. Pascu drove off at your request. It is not suggested by the Crown that Pascu or the others present in the car were accomplices in your crime.
Simms-Parsons was collected from a nearby hotel en route. You were next captured on CCTV with Simms-Parsons, Pascu and others at a Ministry of Housing complex in Carlton. From there you later caught a cab to Fairfield with Simms-Parsons and stayed the night with a friend, seemingly hoping to avoid police attention.
Autopsy and injury to Natasha Lamb
Mr Trinh’s body was examined by Pathologist Dr Paul Bedford on 19 March 2016 and he opined that the cause of death was incised injuries to the neck. He observed an incised injury extending from the left side of the neck across the midline and to the right side of the neck.
The incision went most of the way through the trachea, and almost all the way through the common carotid artery on the right and left so that the artery was almost transected. There was also an almost total transection of the right jugular vein. These incised injuries led to catastrophic blood loss and death.
Ms Lamb received a very slight cut to her right index finger which was a minor injury.
Investigation and arrest
Mr Molfese, you were arrested on 27 March 2016 following investigation by the Homicide Squad. You have remained in custody since that time.
Gravity of the offence
The crime of murder carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The murder in this case was performed as part of a planned armed robbery, although you were not charged with attempted armed robbery. Nor were you charged with s 3A murder.
The CCTV footage shown to the jury at your trial allowed the inference that after Ms Simms-Parsons discussed buying heroin from Ricky Trinh in Coles, you placed yourself in a position to observe where he went after leaving Coles, so that you could take him by surprise and rob him of his drug supply at knifepoint. Ricky Trinh was caught off-guard as he walked along Clarendon Street with his girlfriend Ms Lamb.
In the course of attempting the armed robbery, you impulsively slashed at Ricky Trinh’s throat with deadly force. I am not able to conclude whether the reflexive movement of Ms Lamb triggered you to inflict greater violence than you had planned, but even if any such explanation were available, it in no way reduces your responsibility for the murder of Ricky Trinh.
Whilst the uncharged act of attempted armed robbery was a planned offence, the planning was opportunistic and of short duration. The actual murder was committed spontaneously, with the attempt to rob Ricky Trinh being immediately abandoned. Whilst the absence of premeditation for the murder mitigates the objective gravity of the offending to some extent, this is partially offset by the aggravating feature that it occurred whilst attempting an armed robbery at knifepoint.
In essence, you, as a drug-seeking and drug-affected individual, made a chance observation of Ricky Trinh at a local shopping precinct, and, believing him to be carrying drugs, you formed a plan to rob him at knifepoint before he could depart the area. The inherent dangerousness of approaching a person’s throat with an edged weapon was pointed out by the Crown. You acted intentionally in slashing Ricky Trinh’s throat with the knife once your plan was in motion.
As I commented during the plea hearing, there are features of this crime that have parallels with cases of constructive murder under s 3A Crimes Act 1958. Nevertheless, the Crown has pointed out that the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at the moment you slashed the deceased’s throat with the knife, you held the actual intent for murder.
Procedural history
The trial for murder commenced on 13 June 2017 with verdict on 29 June 2017. Much of the trial evidence consisted of the playing of CCTV footage, apart from the cross-examination of Ms Lamb. The issue at trial was confined to focusing attention on your state of mind and the deliberateness of your actions when you cut Mr Trinh’s throat. The Crown suggested that the cross-examination of Ms Lamb was such as to detract from any finding of remorse. I am not prepared to make that specific finding but the fact that you contested the charge of murder means that you cannot rely on the same factors that could have applied had you pleaded guilty to the charge. Nevertheless, your trial was conducted with reasonable efficiency. Upon being convicted of murder, the sentencing hearing was adjourned to enable the charges on the second indictment to be uplifted from the County Court to this court so that sentencing could be imposed for the totality of the offending on both 16 and 18 March 2016.
You have been in custody continuously since the date of arrest on 18 March 2016. There had been a contested committal in respect of the second indictment, but that case was brought before this court for finalisation as soon as practicable after your conviction for murder. This approach facilitated the administration of justice and you are entitled to be given the full benefit for your plea of guilty and facilitation of proceedings in relation to the charges on the second indictment.
Aggravated burglary and related charges
I will now move to a consideration of the second indictment and the charges therein.
On the evening of 16 March 2016, only two days before the murder of Ricky Trinh, you committed a serious aggravated burglary upon Bijan Ranjbar at 62/200 Dorcas Street, South Melbourne. You went there with two others , Williams and Abdirahman.
Upon entry to the apartment, you committed the further offences of intentionally causing injury to Bijan Ranjbar and theft. Mr Ranjbar was a 64-year-old gentleman at the time of the incident. It appears that he knew one of your co-offenders. It also appears that he was known to be likely to have quantities of prescription medications on the premises.
You went there just after 6.00 am, and, when Mr Ranjbar opened the solid wooden door and spoke to the three of you through the security door, attempts were made to persuade him to supply sleeping pills. Mr Ranjbar refused that request. Eventually he was asked for a glass of water, so he closed the door and went off to the kitchen to get one. Meanwhile, the security door was forced so that when he returned and opened the wooden door, you and Williams were able to make your way into the apartment. One of your number, Abdirahman remained outside the apartment but you and Williams jointly assaulted Mr Ranjbar. He was pushed to the floor and struck to the chest with a crowbar. He was also hit with a metal pipe and wooden stick, and continued to be assaulted as you both searched the apartment. At one point, Mr Ranjbar had his pants pulled down whereupon a threat was made for him to hand over what was wanted or his penis would be cut off. Williams picked up a kitchen knife and slapped Mr Ranjbar to the face with the side of the blade. You, Josef Molfese, stabbed Mr Ranjbar to the upper thigh with a screwdriver and injured his foot with the crowbar.
On searching under the bed, you located $8,000 cash and some prescription medication, along with Mr Ranjbar’s mobile phone. You stole these items and the pair of you left the apartment. None of the stolen property was able to be recovered by police.
This brutal attack on Mr Ranjbar was committed in circumstances where he was alone and outnumbered in his own home. He went to his son’s nearby apartment for help and his son rang Mr Ranjbar’s mobile phone. You answered that phone, Josef Molfese, and your voice was recognised by the caller.
Mr Ranjbar was hospitalised for a week following this terrifying home invasion. He was found to have lacerations to his face and both arms, bruised arms, a laceration to his chest, and wounds to his right thigh and left foot.
Williams awaits trial in the County Court on charges arising from this incident.[4] You indicated a willingness to plead guilty to the charges on the second indictment on 3 October 2017 and I regard that as a relatively early plea, although less early than if the plea had been entered before committal.
[4] Abdirahman was not charged.
Notwithstanding your plea of guilty, this was a serious example of the offence of aggravated burglary and intentionally cause injury. It was perpetrated in a threatening manner on an older victim, assaulting him over several minutes with various weapons and taking advantage of the victim’s helplessness in the face of two assailants. Armed with weapons, you broke in despite being aware that the apartment was occupied and that you were not welcome.
As the Court of Appeal said in Hogarth v The Queen,[5] ‘Home invasion is a particularly nasty form of criminal conduct’. Referring to the specific features of that case the court said, ‘the entry of offenders – acting in anger and often fuelled by alcohol – is itself a terrifying experience for the householder(s) irrespective of what may occur after entry’. The same remark applies to your conduct in this case, although in your case there is no evidence that you were affected by alcohol and your motive was the pursuit of drugs or valuables to feed a drug habit rather than anger or revenge.
[5][2012] VSCA 302 [1].
In Hogarth, the court reviewed sentencing practices for aggravated burglary as they stood in 2012 and recognised the need at that time for increased sentences to be imposed for confrontational aggravated burglaries and violent home invasions.[6]
[6]Hogarth v The Queen [2012] VSCA 302 [58].
The Court of Appeal in DPP v Meyers[7] and Hi v The Queen[8] underlined that it is the readiness of the offender to engage in violent confrontation that makes some cases of aggravated burglary particularly serious without the need to establish any particular animus held towards the occupier(s) of the premises. In this case, you entered the victims home in a determined manner armed and ready for confrontation and quickly embarked upon violence once you had forced your way in.
[7][2014] VSCA 314.
[8][2017] VSCA 315 [49-50].
Of course, the charge of aggravated burglary is complete at the time of entry and I must avoid imposing a sentence which appears to involve double punishment, in respect of the charges on the second indictment where the factual background to the charges overlaps to some degree.[9] The charge of aggravated burglary carries a maximum of 25 years imprisonment and the remaining two charges on the second indictment each carry a maximum of ten years.
[9]Jafari v R [2015] VSCA 295 [41]-[51] referring to DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314.
Personal background
Josef Molfese, at the time of committing the offences on 16 and 18 March 2016, you already had a significant criminal history and had served terms of imprisonment and youth detention.
You were 28 years of age at the time of the offending and were unemployed and had no fixed address. You were heavily addicted to drugs, in particular heroin, methamphetamine and pills of various types. The motive for the offending on both occasions was connected to pursuit of the means of feeding your drug habit, and you were under the influence of drugs at the time of the offending on 18 March 2016. Of course, intoxication at the time of offending is not usually a mitigating circumstance, although it may be relevant to an assessment of the degree of planning and premeditation attached to criminal offending.
You are currently 29 years of age. You had a reasonably happy childhood, but began to show evidence of being troubled around the age of 10 in 1998 at which time your parents separated.
In 2002, when aged 14, you were diagnosed with ADHD (‘attention deficit hyperactivity disorder’). Attempts to have you medicated for that disorder failed to be enforced by your parents.
In your early adolescence your mother was unable to control your behaviour and custody of you shifted from your mother’s care to your father. Your first appearance before the Children’s Court was in 2002 and by 2004 you were sent to live with your paternal grandparents. Your schooling was fragmented with attendance at seven different secondary schools and expulsion from schools due to unruly behaviour. You commenced an apprenticeship in 2005, aged 16, but did not complete it.
You were sentenced to youth detention in August 2007 at the age of 19, and, upon release found a job working for a phone company for a four month period before losing motivation and resuming drug use. You were then further arrested and charged with robbery. On 9 December 2009, you were sentenced for that and possession of drugs to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. Having been paroled in 2011, you obtained work with VISY industries for a period of time. A short relationship with a former partner, Crystal, resulted in a son, born in February 2012.
In 2012, suspended sentences were imposed at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court for unlawful assault and other offences, and at Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court for burglary and related charges.
Those suspended sentences were breached by re-offending in 2013, and you were dealt with for burglary at Sunshine Magistrate’s Court, and robbery at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, also in 2013.
In October 2013, you were sentenced to a further term of imprisonment for burglary and breach of a suspended sentence that had been imposed in August 2012. A 12 month sentence for the robbery meant that you were in custody until November 2014.
You therefore committed the offences on 16 and 18 March 2016 against a background of fairly persistent offending, mainly connected to drug-seeking behaviour, although there have been some brief periods of self-restraint.
The report of Warren Simmons, psychologist, dated 20 July 2017 was prepared after consulting with you following your conviction for murder.
Mr Simmons canvassed your personal background, noting the acrimony that arose between your parents when their marriage broke up and your disrupted schooling and family life. You were introduced to cannabis at 15 through school friends and at 16 started on methamphetamine. You began using intravenous heroin at 19 as well as benzodiazepines and other drugs. You had to be revived from drug overdoses in 2012 and 2015. You also attempted to overdose on heroin in 2013. Your life had evidently been set upon a self-destructive path. You have described symptoms of depression affecting you over the years and are currently depressed in reaction to your present circumstances.
You told Mr Simmons that you had used Xanax, heroin and methamphetamine on the day of the murder and believe that you were affected by drugs at the time. There is some independent support for this proposition in the depositions. The commission of crimes under the influence of drugs is unfortunately a frequent occurrence and the law does not treat the influence of voluntary drug ingestion as a mitigating factor.
You appear to have some insight into the effect of drugs on your behaviour, having told Mr Simmons that you are aware that you make bad decisions whenever you are using drugs. Mr Simmons also considers that your ADHD may have contributed to poor decision-making.
Although his opinion about your potential for rehabilitation is guarded, Mr Simmons noted that you are remorseful for the murder of Ricky Trinh. Mr Simmons was not asked to consult about the second indictment because that indictment was yet to be filed at the time of his appointment with you.
Mr Simmons noted you are currently medicated with an antidepressant (Avanza) to stabilise your moods. He also noted that the lengthy period you will endure in custody may provide an opportunity for more intensive treatment for your ADHD and your substance abuse in the future.
You told Mr Simmons that your current partner Jacqui has known you for many years, and that she has been regularly visiting you in gaol and is supportive of you. You have also been supported at court by your mother, and your older sister.
Each of the abovementioned individuals have provided testimonials in which they have described their perspective of you when you are not seeking or using drugs or associating in the criminal world. Each of them has also described their impression that you are remorseful for causing the death of Ricky Trinh, knowing the impact that has had on his family and children.
You regret being unable to act as a father to your five-year-old son, although your sister remains involved with your son on your behalf. Your mother has stated that you come from a large family who will continue to offer you their support despite your criminal offending.
Victim impact statements
When Ricky Trinh died he left behind two young sons aged 14 and 12 from a previous relationship, and four adult daughters from his relationship with Natasha Harding. Ms Harding had known Ricky Trinh since her teenage years. Since his death, Ms Harding and Ricky Trinh’s adult daughters have taken on the role of bringing up his two sons, helping them through their grief. Each of Ricky Trinh’s children are distressed by the loss of their father. Ms Harding has also spoken of the impact on her of the murder. Grief and suffering are likely to have been experienced by other friends and relatives who have not submitted victim impact statements in respect of the murder, including Natasha Lamb, who gave evidence for the Crown in your murder trial.
As to the aggravated burglary, although the victim, Mr Ranjbar, did not submit a victim impact statement, it is obvious that he was a vulnerable person who experienced significant pain, suffering and loss as a result of your crimes.
The purposes of sentencing
Under s 5(1) of the Sentencing Act1991, the purposes for which sentence is imposed may include general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation, community protection, just punishment and rehabilitation.
I consider that general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment must have particular emphasis in the sentences that I impose on the charge of murder and also in respect of the charges of aggravated burglary and intentionally causing injury. Specific deterrence and community protection also have some relevance because of your past offending and because of the nature of the offences before the court.
Rehabilitation
In considering the important goal of rehabilitation, I am conscious of the fact that although you have served sentences of imprisonment or detention in the past you are in a wholly different position now, facing many years in gaol whilst still being a relatively young man.
Your drug habit has been the focal point of your life for many years now and has created obstacles to employment, regular housing and family stability. Although you have had, and continue to have, the ongoing support from your parents and siblings, you have struggled to overcome the temptation of drugs.
It should be apparent to you that you must now work hard to overcome your drug addiction and to make amends for your crimes.
I agree with Mr Simmons that your prospects for rehabilitation are somewhat guarded except insofar as the opportunity may arise for more intensive rehabilitative treatment to address your ADHD and your attraction to illicit drugs. Perhaps the ongoing support of your family and friends will provide the motivation to bring about positive change. You are fortunate to have this continuing support.
As well as recognising the role of rehabilitation in the sentences to be imposed, I must also pay heed to the principle of parsimony in s 5(3) of the Sentencing Act1991 which indicates that a court must not pass a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed.
Current sentencing practices
In considering current sentencing practices for the crime of murder, and the particular features of this murder, I am mindful of the limitations of comparing statistical outcomes in sentencing whilst attempting to pursue consistency of approach. The Court of Appeal in Hi said ‘However, ultimately the consistency that is sought to be achieved is not some mathematical or numerical equivalence of sentences. Rather, the process is directed to achieving consistency in the application of relevant legal principles. For that reason, so-called comparable cases are not precedents.’[10]
[10]At [50] referring to Lieu v the Queen [2011] VSCA 277.
I have reviewed recent sentences,[11] and statements of principle in respect of the crime of aggravated burglary including cases of aggravated burglary committed in conjunction with related violent offences.
[11]The Crown provided a 78 page summary of County Court sentences for aggravated burglary and many of those offences were committed in combination with assaults and thefts in like circumstances to the second indictment in this case. Additionally, the case of Hogarth surveyed previous sentencing practice in detail. I also considered the Sentencing Snapshot for Aggravated Burglary no 184 ‘Sentencing trends in the higher courts of Victoria’ 2010–11 to 2014–15 (for sentences between 2011 and 2016) although it needed to be viewed with circumspection in light of Hogarth.
Totality and avoidance of crushing sentence
In considering orders for concurrency of sentence among the charges on the second indictment and concurrency with the sentence for murder I am bound by the principle of totality requiring a total effective sentence and non-parole period that is a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved, and is proportionate to your conduct overall.[12]
[12]Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26.
Although the murder of Ricky Trinh was not premeditated, it was committed in the course of approaching him in a violent manner with a dangerous weapon in order to rob him. The aggravated burglary and related offending arose from an earlier and unrelated home invasion the gravity of which deserves separate recognition in your sentencing.
Therefore, I am obliged to make orders for cumulation or concurrency which are appropriately reflective of the serious nature of the offending on the second indictment despite the need to give weight to the principle of totality.
In considering the important goal of rehabilitation in sentencing, I emphasize that there is a fundamental need to address your longstanding ADHD and drug addiction if you are to become a law abiding and successful member of the community in the future.
Josef Molfese, please stand up.
For the murder of Ricky Trinh the sentence to be imposed is 20 years imprisonment.
For the crime of aggravated burglary, which is charge one on the second indictment, you are sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
For the crime of intentionally causing injury to Bijan Ranjbar, which is charge two on the second indictment, you are sentenced to two years imprisonment.
For the crime of theft, which is charge three on the second indictment, you are sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
The sentence for murder is the base sentence.
The orders for cumulation on the sentence for murder are as follows:
For the crime of aggravated burglary, I direct that a period of two years be served cumulatively on the sentence for murder.
For the charge of intentionally causing injury, I order that a further 12 months be served cumulatively.
For the charge of theft, I order that a further four months be served cumulatively.
The total effective sentence is 23 years and four months imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period on this sentence of 18 years and four months.
I declare 689 days of pre-sentence detention, not including today, as served under s 18 of the Sentencing Act and that figure will be entered into the records of the court.
I make the disposal order sought by the Crown.
Under s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that but for your pleas of guilty to the charges on the second indictment, had I been sentencing you for those offences alone I would have imposed a sentence of 8 years for the aggravated burglary, two years and eight months for the offence of causing injury intentionally, and 16 months for the charge of theft.
6
0