Director of Public Prosecutions v Monichon
[2022] VCC 1161
•20 July 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
General List
Case No. CR-21-01307
CR-19-01549
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| TRENT MONICHON |
---
JUDGE: | Her Honour Judge Gwynn | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 April, 2 June, 19 July 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 20 July 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Monichon | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1161 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal law
Catchwords: Recklessly cause serious injury, breach of community correction order
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:Ashe v The Queen [2010] VSCA 119; R v Lovett [2006] VSCA 5; DPP v McKay [2018] VSCA 292; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169
Sentence: 4 years imprisonment (2 years 2 months non-parole period)
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr. D. Porceddu | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Offender | Mr. R. Backwell | Ann Valos Criminal Law |
HER HONOUR:
1Trent Monichon, you have pleaded guilty on indictment to a single charge of causing serious injury recklessly.
2In sentencing you for your crime, I am obliged to have regard to the maximum penalty which attaches to the offence you have committed. Causing serious injury recklessly carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.
3You also admit contravening a community correction order imposed upon you by Her Honour Judge Pullen on 16 December 2019 for a charge of armed robbery and a summary charge of failing to answer bail. A charge of contravening a community correction order carries a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment. A charge of armed robbery carries a maximum of 25 years' imprisonment and failing to answer bail carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.
4The maximum penalties to which I have referred reflect the seriousness with which Parliament regards each offence.
The offending
5The circumstances of your offending were set out in a “Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea” dated 5 April 2022. It is a detailed document and represents an acceptance by you of the elements of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty as well as the factual basis on which I am to sentence.
6In short compass, as at 28 January 2021 you were residing with your mother, Trayce Jardine, at Daley Street, Glenroy. The victim, James Miller, lived next door. These units were each on ground level.
7In the late morning of 28 January 2021 Mr Miller, his partner Leiza McNaughton, and your mother commenced drinking Wild Turkey in Mr Miller’s apartment.
8Mr Miller started to appear intoxicated. He threw dirty tissues at Ms Jardine and poked her repeatedly to the chest, telling her that she should always defend her kids no matter what they do.
9At approximately 12:35 pm, Mr Miller went next door into Ms Jardine’s apartment where you were home alone. At some point you were heard to call out, “Mum, mum”. Ms McNaughton and Ms Jardine entered your apartment to find Mr Miller on the floor next to the kitchen table.
10At approximately 3:10 pm Mr Miller began calling out to a Mr Colak who resided in a unit on the upper level. Mr Colak asked Mr Miller to keep quiet as he was relaxing and trying to sleep. Mr Miller then went upstairs and confronted Mr Colak at the entry to his unit. Mr Miller is described in the Crown opening as being hostile at this time. At one point Mr Colak gave Mr Miller a gentle push.
11Mr Miller then returned downstairs. A short time later Mr Colak could hear water being splashed onto his balcony. Mr Miller was described as being drunk and belligerent. Mr Colak saw Mr Miller to have a hose.
12Another witness, Mr Bailey, could hear Mr Miller yelling at Mr Colak.
13A Mr Kinsley heard Mr Miller and Ms Jardine arguing and saw Mr Miller squirting water towards her apartment – where, as I have said, you resided.
14Those facts are the background to what next occurred.
15Mr Colak heard screaming from downstairs, recognising your voice. He could also hear your mother yelling. He also heard Mr Miller’s voice before it went silent. The next thing he heard was you say, “What did you want me to do?” You sounded emotional.
16It was around the same time that Mr Bailey heard, “Come on then” – alleged to be you speaking to Mr Miller and then your mother says, “Argh, you cut him, call an ambulance.”
17Ms Jardine held a towel to Mr Miller’s neck outside his unit. Mr Bailey assisted, applying pressure.
18Witnesses heard you and your mother arguing about what had just transpired. Your mother was heard to say, “What did you cut him for, why didn’t you just use your fists”, and “You silly boy.”
19Emergency services were called.
20When police attended you told them that you had changed your clothes. You were taken to Fawkner Police Station for interview, during which you denied being responsible for the injury to Mr Miller.
21Mr Miller was taken to hospital. He suffered a transection of the left carotid artery and a transection of the left internal jugular vein. As a result of that injury Mr Miller suffered a cardiac arrest due to the rapid blood loss from a penetrating injury and would not have survived without medical intervention.
22He sustained extensive ischaemic infarcts to the left side of his brain with significant weakness in his right arm and right leg. His comprehension, speech and cognitive abilities were all affected. He was transferred to an inpatient rehabilitation unit approximately one month following the incident, at which time he was identified as requiring care 24 hours a day.
23A report from Dr Sarah Holper dated 24 February 2021 noted that Mr Miller required 24 hours a day care due to the stroke he suffered as a result of the injury and was unable to live independently.
24Dr Nicola Cunningham reviewed the victim’s injuries and reported that the degree to which Mr Miller’s deficits will improve in the long-term was difficult to predict but it is likely he would continue to experience neurological impairments that will adversely impact on his ability to live and work independently.
25There is no available additional medical information on Mr Miller’s health and functioning post this date, although the tendered victim impact statement makes some of this clearer. It is reported on Mr Miller's behalf that he has memory problems, difficulty walking - using a wheelchair - and needs assistance with daily tasks. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that Mr Miller suffered an injury which both endangered his life and has been both substantial and protracted, elevating the seriousness of this offence.
Gravity of the offending and victim impact
26It is perhaps trite to say that causing serious injury recklessly using a knife is an inherently grave offence.
27On any view of it the consequences for Mr Miller from your actions of 28 January 2021 have been dire.
28The purpose of a victim impact statement is to give those affected by your crime the opportunity to participate in the criminal justice process by informing the court about the effects of the crime upon them.
29Mr Miller’s partner has assisted him to provide a victim impact statement and I have already referred to some of its content. I am told that he does not recall the actual event, but he is well aware of the ongoing physical ramifications for him and the significant changes he has had to make to his life and lifestyle. On the information before me the impacts upon him continue to this day and are likely to do so for a considerable period of time into the future.
30I accept that the offending occurred in the context of difficulties in relationships at the unit complex on that particular day. There does not appear to be a history of conflict between you and Mr Miller and in the main you don’t have a history for violent behaviour. I also accept that your actions were spontaneous and would appear to involve a single blow. I do not have an evidentiary basis to form the view that you intended to strike Mr Miller’s neck.
31Nevertheless you concede in your plea of guilty that, through your actions, a serious injury was probable and yet you proceeded. The use of a knife is an obviously dangerous act. However, I accept that the actual consequences to Mr Miller were unintended.
32In such a circumstance the severity of consequence suffered by the victim and the extent of his injury ought not swamp all other sentencing considerations. In your case there does appear to be a disparity between the probable serious injury foreseen by you and the level of injury actually suffered by Mr Miller. Clearly, however, those consequences remain relevant to sentence in accordance with section 5(2)(db) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
33The Crown have helpfully referred me to a number of cases of causing serious injury recklessly where the impact on the victim has also been significant and I have had recourse to each of those. They include Ashe v The Queen [2010] VSCA 119; R vLovett [2006] VSCA 5 and DPP v McKay [2018] VSCA 292. McKay is said to be the closest to your situation.
34I note that these were for general assistance. There are notable differences, as would be expected. For example, Ashe involved a sustained attack foreseeing maximum harm when the victim was incapacitated and reduced to a vegetative state. Lovett pleaded not guilty. In that case the victim was struck from behind with a wooden post, suffering a severe blow to the head which caused him to fall to the ground unconscious and fracture his skull, leaving him with permanent brain damage. He was unable to give evidence in the trial.
35In McKay the victim suffered severe and life-threatening injury when stabbed to the femoral artery after an argument over golf and the offender returned to his vehicle and collected a knife. It was not in that sense, an impulsive act.
36None of the above matters were required to take into account the decision in Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169, but I am grateful for the general assistance each offered.
Plea of guilty
37You have also taken responsibility for your offending through your pleas of guilty.
38The Sentencing Act obliges me to take into account the stage at which you entered your plea. You indicated your willingness to plead guilty to the charge on the indictment following participation in resolution discussions with the Crown. You made an offer to the charge on the indictment in July of 2021 and entered your plea in November of 2021.
39Given you have entered your plea to a less serious charge than that on which you were committed for trial, and given the timing, it does, in that sense, represent a plea at an early opportunity. This much, as I understand it, is conceded.
40Your plea also has utilitarian value in saving the court the time and expense of contested proceedings and the witnesses the need to attend court and give evidence about distressing events. This is particularly important in the case of the victim and his partner.
41In addition, in the decision of Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 at paragraph [39], the Court of Appeal said as follows, and I quote:
“ — a plea of guilty entered during the currency of the COVID-19 pandemic is worthy of greater weight in mitigation than a similar plea entered at a time when the community and the courts are not afflicted by the pandemic’s effects. A plea of guilty during the pandemic ordinarily should attract a more pronounced amelioration of sentence than at another time…”
42Whilst perhaps not apparent at the time of your police interview, I am satisfied, given your efforts to rehabilitate, that you are remorseful for your actions.
43These factors will all be taken into account in your favour.
Personal circumstances
44You are now 28 years of age.
45Each of your parents were drug users when you were a child. You have an older sister aged 31 years who played a significant role in raising you given your parents' problems at that time. I understand that each of your parents have overcome their personal difficulties and that you have a close relationship with each of them. Your father certainly attended each of your hearings to date.
46You required the assistance of a teacher's aid during your primary school years. You were medicated with Ritalin for ADHD and struggled with your schoolwork.
47You completed a year nine education.
48Upon leaving school you worked in a factory with your father, driving a forklift for approximately two years. Your employment was terminated after an accident.
49In the past you have also worked as a car detailer. Your employment history has predominantly involved nonskilled labour. Otherwise you have had periods of unemployment and been in receipt of Newstart allowance.
50You have had an ongoing relationship with drugs. At the age of 17 years you smoked cannabis and then began consuming alcohol. Your cannabis use became a daily one.
51You first used heroin when 21 years of age which also led to regular use, and you have also used sedatives such as Valium and Xanax.
52You suffer from a condition known as Nystagmus, which is an eye condition where your eyes flitter from side to side. This also affects your vision as your eyes make repetitive, uncontrolled movements resulting in reduced vision and impairment in depth perception which can affect your balance and coordination. The effects of this condition increase when you are anxious or stressed. You are self-conscious about this condition.
Prior criminal history
53You have an admitted prior criminal history.
54On 1 August 2013 you appeared at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court in relation to driving offences and a charge of failing to answer bail. At that time you were placed on an adjourned undertaking for a period of two years. A conviction was recorded. You appear to have completed that order.
55On 2 February 2015 you appeared at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court in relation to a charge of criminal damage. Without conviction you were placed on an adjourned undertaking for a period of 12 months. You contravened this undertaking. As a result you appeared at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court on 27 June 2016 and were fined the amount of $300.
56On 25 July 2016 you appeared at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court in relation to a charge of contravening a family violence intervention order. You were convicted and fined the amount of $1100.
57On 27 March 2018 you appeared at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court in relation to shop theft, failing to answer bail and a range of driving offences. You were convicted and fined the amount of $2500.
58On 11 January 2019 you appeared at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court in relation to charges of possessing heroin and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. You were convicted and sentenced to one day's imprisonment which was reckoned as having already been served.
59On 24 June 2019 you appeared at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court in relation to shop theft and possess heroin. You were convicted and sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment which was reckoned as having already been served.
60Up until this point in time your prior history was for relatively minor offending.
61As referred to earlier, on 16 December 2019 you were sentenced by the Melbourne County Court for a charge of armed robbery and failing to answer bail to an aggregate of 11 months' imprisonment and a community corrections order of two years duration. 222 days were reckoned as having already been served. It is this corrections order which you now admit to contravening.
The contravention
62The sentencing reasons of Her Honour Judge Pullen were made available to me and to the parties. The offence of armed robbery occurred on 31 May 2018 and involved you taking alcohol from a Dan Murphy’s store. You were confronted by an employee and taken to the cash register. When you reached the register, you tried to pull a basket of alcohol away from the employee, telling him to let go. You then reached into your pocket and withdrew a small black handled steak knife, holding it by your side. At that point the employee released the shopping basket and told you to “Just go".
63It is clearly also an offence which involves the use of a knife, albeit in very different circumstances.
64The community corrections order on which you were placed included community work and treatment conditions as well as judicial monitoring. You were subject to this order at the time of the offending before me, which is an aggravating feature to that offending.
65You were released from the prison part of Judge Pullen's orders on or about 5 April 2020.
66A judicial monitoring report dated 29 July 2020 was made available. That report tells me that the community work component of the order had been put on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Your compliance at that point in time was described as satisfactory.
67A judicial monitoring report dated 29 January 2021 was also made available. You had been placed in custody the day prior due to the offending now before me. The report otherwise confirms that you had completed an episode of drug counselling. You had engaged in some other counselling sessions and completed your treatment for your mental health. No more could be done at that stage given you were in custody.
68As referred to earlier, you admit the contravention of the corrections order imposed 16 December 2019.
69Section 83AS of the Sentencing Act 1991 provides that a judge who is dealing with a contravention of a corrections order can deal with the offender for the original offences with respect to which the order was made as if the court had just found him guilty of that offence. In other words, the offender can be re-sentenced entirely afresh. In effect, you can be sentenced for both the contravention of the correction orders and your original offending which saw you placed on that order. It is that course which the Office of Corrections seek I undertake and that was initially supported by the Office of Public Prosecutions.
70Section 83AS(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991 requires me to take into account the extent to which you have complied with the order made.
71I have had recourse to the contravention package filed and the 'Contravention of Community Corrections Order by Further Offences Report' dated 10 June 2022.
72
You failed to perform unpaid community work on one occasion, failed to undergo treatment and rehabilitation as required on five occasions, failed to be supervised, monitored and managed as directed on three occasions and failed to attend a program relating to offending behaviour on one occasion. The majority of these failures were in late 2020 and early 2021, in the lead up to the offending of
28 January 2021. I am told that there was some return to drug use around this time.
73The report provided otherwise tells me that during the initial stages of the order you engaged meaningfully and participated in case planning goals and strategies. Your general progress was described as satisfactory.
74In terms of treatment and rehabilitation, you were exited from treatment successfully. Throughout the course of the order you acknowledged challenges associated with your drug use and identified for yourself that you would benefit from a further episode of treatment. That was organised and you again completed treatment goals.
75In terms of the mental health component of your community corrections order, you also satisfied this order condition. You were referred to an offending behaviour program for high intensity violence, but due to the impact of COVID-19 there was delay in processing that program and you were unable to receive the benefit from that program in advance of your offence of 28 January 2021. We will never know what difference that may have made. Unfortunately, you were arrested for that matter before a subsequent referral could commence.
76Whilst you completed some 14 and a half of the 200 hours you were ordered to complete by way of community work, it was recognised in the contravention report that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and State government restrictions there were limitations on the provision of this service. A combination of the suspension to on-site community work due to the pandemic and you being remanded for about seven months was acknowledged in the difficulties you faced completing the community work aspect of the order.
77Very much to your credit, when you were released on bail on 30 August 2021, you contacted the Office of Corrections and re-engaged with the corrections order.
78The report before me indicates that you would benefit from a further opportunity to engage in a community-based disposition to address your various needs.
79Given the body of the report before me, it appears your compliance was relatively high given the number of intervening factors. Whilst it is expressed to me that the order should be cancelled and you should be resentenced due to the seriousness of your further offending, I note that you will be punished, in any event, for what is described as the further offending. I appreciate, however, that further offending is one aspect of your non-compliance.
80Totality is another relevant factor. The totality principle requires that where an offender is being sentenced to multiple terms, or is otherwise to serve multiple sentences, then the sentencer should ensure that the total sentence remains one which is ‘just and appropriate’ for the whole of the offending.
81In keeping with this principle and your level of compliance overall, it seems more prudent to find the breach proven, confirm the corrections order – noting it has now expired - and exact punishment for the charge of contravening the community correction order. This was the submission made on your behalf and one which, as I understand it, the Crown ultimately viewed as the more sensible course.
Delay and prospects for rehabilitation
82Until your most recent two offences, your criminal history was relatively limited in terms of its seriousness.
83The chronology of the matter before me is relevant to the sentencing exercise.
84The offending occurred, as I have said, on 28 January 2021, and you were arrested on that day.
85You had a committal hearing on 17 June 2021.
86As referred to earlier, the prosecution accepted a plea to the current charge in resolution of the matter on 18 November 2021, you having made an offer to do so as early as July 2021.
87On 30 August 2021 you were bailed by me onto the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP). CISP offers a coordinated approach to the assessment and treatment of accused persons, providing case management, and linking program participants to services with expertise and which benefit the needs of the particular accused person.
88At the time of your release on bail you had spent some 215 days in custody on remand.
89You were required to appear before me for regular reviews of your compliance with the bail program.
90Otherwise your plea hearing commenced on 11 April 2022, but outstanding at that time was a neuropsychological assessment sought by CISP. As such your plea was further adjourned until 2 June 2022 so that the report could be obtained.
91When the matter returned to court on 2 June 2022 it was obvious that your offending of 28 January 2021 contravened the community corrections order imposed upon you on 16 December 2019, so the matter was further adjourned until 19 July 2022 so that all matters could be heard at the one time. Your bail was revoked on 2 June 2022 as a practical reality as you were facing a term of imprisonment which exceeded the pre-sentence detention that you had already undertaken.
92
Both periods of your remand have been during the Corrections response to the COVID-19 pandemic where I accept, in a general terms, there has been less access to freedom of movement within the prison system, less access to educational and rehabilitative programs and less access to contact visits from friends and family. New inmates were required to quarantine for a period of
14 days. In a general sense this makes any remanded or sentenced prisoner experience more burdensome than it would otherwise be, and has perhaps been a greater sanction and deterrent for you on this occasion than it has been for you in the past.
93You have had these matters hanging over your head for a period in excess of 18 months. Whilst not an extensive period, I accept that this would have been a burden in terms of the stress of proceedings and awaiting finalisation of them. In addition, that time represents a testing period as to your prospects for rehabilitation, to which I now turn.
Prospects for rehabilitation
94I have already canvassed your efforts whilst subject to the community corrections order. It would appear that some of these efforts were occurring concurrently with your compliance on CISP.
95
You attended for a review of your bail before me on 30 September 2021,
9 November 2021 and 13 December 2021. Reports from CISP were provided on each occasion, and on each occasion reported positive progress by you, and your ongoing honesty with the difficulties you faced.
96In a participant finalisation report dated 2 September 2021, I was told that you had been engaged with alcohol and drug counselling and had regularly attended counselling appointments. You were described as insightful in treatment, recognising the negative impact of substance use and were motivated to maintain abstinence. You had also commenced taking an antidepressant.
97In a further report dated 6 April 2022 you were described as demonstrating a commitment towards addressing your illicit drug use. By that time you had successfully completed a seven-month episode of CISP case management as part of your bail orders. You were described as observing a significant shift in your decision-making and behaviours. You were determined to maintain your positive progress.
98A brief addendum report dated 31 May 2022 was also provided. You had successfully completed alcohol and other drug counselling. You had maintained engagement. CISP had organised a neuropsychological assessment to which I earlier referred.
99In terms of the neuropsychological report it was authored by Alison Schokman and dated 13 May 2022. You had a history of incurring head injuries. You were assessed by Ms Schokman as having a full-scale IQ of 71, meaning that 97% of individuals of a similar age have a higher intellectual ability than you. Day-to-day functioning was assessed as being markedly below what would be expected of someone your age.
100In Ms Schokman’s opinion your cognitive profile is consistent with previously diagnosed ADHD. You would also meet the criteria for intellectual disability which she opines is both permanent and lifelong. Your presentation significantly impacts on your ability to function in day-to-day life in relation to self-management, learning, communication and social interaction. She believes you would benefit from accessing the NDIS scheme.
101You also experience symptoms of anxiety, a consistent problem for you, and will need assistance to manage your mental health.
102Ms Schokman comments that you appeared to have achieved stability through CISP and had been able to lead a pro-social lifestyle in the absence of both substance use and offending behaviour.
103Also tendered on your behalf was a psychological assessment report authored by Alison Mynard, clinical psychologist and dated 1 November 2019. This report was used for your plea hearing before Her Honour Judge Pullen. Some of the contents remain relevant.
104At the time of Ms Mynard's assessment you presented as a highly anxious individual. You met the diagnostic criteria for ADHD. So far her report is consistent with the neuropsychological assessment of you.
105Ms Mynard also assessed your cognitive functioning. You scored in the borderline ranges of cognitive functioning. You have great difficulty when applying complex reasoning skills to solve problems and have slowed ability to process information. You have a low ability for self-monitoring, of self-control over your emotional state and impulsive actions. In summary, Ms Mynard found you to have borderline range of intellectual functioning and executive function skills which impact on your daily life - significantly in terms of your comprehension, relationships, impulsivity, decision-making and communication skills.
106Based on a combination of these two unchallenged expert opinions, I do form the view that your moral culpability for your offending is reduced. I note also the concession by the Crown that your level of functioning allows for some limited moderation of both general and specific deterrence in the sentencing exercise, and I will do so.
107Whilst the concerns raised by each expert would normally highlight a concern for protection of the community, given your efforts at rehabilitation I am not so concerned. Your efforts also reduce the weight that I believe should attach to specific deterrence.
108
You have a continuing and supportive relationship with each of your parents. You were residing with your father prior to being remanded into custody by me on
2 June 2022 and you are able to return to live with him upon your eventual release.
109Your efforts on your community corrections order both pre and post your remand, together with your compliance with CISP, show considerably improved prospects for your rehabilitation.
110I accept the submission on your behalf that your efforts at rehabilitation should not be “snuffed out” by the term of imprisonment that must be imposed.
Sentencing submissions
111Both parties submit that the gravity of your offending requires the imposition of a head sentence with a non-parole period. On your behalf, given your extended period of rehabilitation in stressful circumstances, it is submitted that an extended period of supported transition into the community has merit. I agree with this submission.
112I am now going to check in with Mr Backwell and Ms Tatas in terms of the matters that I have referred to in case there is any matters that have arisen.
113MS TATAS: Nothing arising from me, Your Honour.
114MR BACKWELL: Nor from me, Your Honour.
115HER HONOUR: Thank you very much.
Sentencing
116I do make the ancillary orders as sought for disposal of scheduled items if I have not made them already.
117Otherwise, the basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of matters that include the seriousness of the offending, your culpability for it, your personal circumstances and of course those of your victim.
118I am also required to balance the interest of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interest the community clearly has in seeking to ensure, as far as possible, that offenders are rehabilitated and reintegrated safely into society.
119I have taken into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 where relevant to your case. I have taken into account the current sentencing practices for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty, as well as the principles of totality and proportionality.
120I will deal firstly with the contravention of the community corrections order imposed by Her Honour Judge Pullen on 16 December 2019. I do find the contravention proven and confirm the order, which I note as I did earlier, has expired. In relation to the charge of contravene community correction order, you are convicted and sentenced to seven days' imprisonment. This period is to be served concurrently with the sentence to be imposed on the indictment.
121I now turn to that sentence. In relation to the charge of recklessly cause serious injury you are convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
122You are to serve two years and two months before being eligible for parole, and 264 days are reckoned as having already been served.
123Section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act requires me to state the sentences that I would have imposed if you had not pleaded guilty to the charges. If not for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of five years and two months imprisonment, with a minimum of four years before being eligible for parole.
124Mr Backwell, I will give you the opportunity to speak with Mr Monichon privately unless there is anything else.
125MR BACKWELL: Thank you, Your Honour.
126MS TATAS: Your Honour, my instructions are that it is 254 days PSD. I am not sure if my learned friend has a different number.
127HER HONOUR: It is obviously important that I get that right.
128MS TATAS: I am sorry, Your Honour, I did not catch the s6AAA.
129HER HONOUR: It was five years and two months' imprisonment with a minimum four years.
130MS TATAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
131HER HONOUR: My own notes - I will impose whatever presentence detention I am supposed to. There seems to be a discrepancy of 10 days.
132MR BACKWELL: Your Honour, at the plea hearing it was said to be 215 days.
133MS TATAS: Yes.
134MR BACKWELL: I work out that there has been 49 days between then and today which equals 264 in my maths.
135HER HONOUR: That is the figure I have got.
136MS TATAS: Yes, that sounds right, Your Honour.
137HER HONOUR: We will leave that as is unless I hear from the parties otherwise. Otherwise I will give the opportunity for Mr Backwell to speak to Mr Monichon privately unless there is anything else.
138MS TATAS: Nothing further from me, Your Honour.
139HER HONOUR: I certainly thank you each for your assistance in the matter and I will stand down now until 3.15, thank you.
- - -
0
3
0