Director of Public Prosecutions v Morton (a pseudonym)
[2020] VCC 1850
•23 November 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SETH MORTON (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE McINERNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 28 October 2020 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 23 November 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v MORTON (a pseudonym) |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 1850 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – Plea of guilty – Persistent contravention of family violence intervention order – Make threat to inflict serious injury – Relevant prior convictions - Principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation and punishment rank high -
Legislation Cited: s.125A(1) Family Violence Protection Act 2008 – s.21 Crimes Act 1958
Cases Cited:R vRenzella [1999] VSCA 85 - DPP v Schmidt (a pseudonym) [2020] VCC 479 - DPP v Anthony Alexander(a pseudonym) [2020] VCC 124
Sentence:Total effective sentence: 1 year and 3 months with a minimum of 9 months before being eligible for parole. Further declare 230 days of pre-sentence detention.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms D. Karamicov (Plea) Ms K. Van Den Akker (Sentence) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr J. McMahon AC SC with Mr C. Wareham (Plea) Mr J. McMahon AC SC (Sentence) | C.Marshall & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1Mr Morton[1], if you would just remain seated. There is no need when I ultimately pronounce sentence for you to stand up, but what I want to explain, as you would have heard, Mr McMahon Senior Counsel, and indeed the learned prosecutor, put a number of matters to me that are relevant to you and it is necessary for me to go through those as a matter of fairness so there is a record made which can be used to explain to you by your counsel or solicitor the reasons for the sentence, and indeed that it is available publicly should there be a need for any such public record. When I have gone through the reasons I will come back to you and then pronounce sentence.
[1] Pseudonym used.
2This plea was conducted on 28 October 2020. Ms Karamicov appeared on behalf of the Director, Mr McMahon of Senior Counsel and Mr Wareham appeared for Mr Morton. We adjourned on that day on the basis of various material being obtained which has been tendered today. The first was the confirmation that the pre-sentence detention as of today is agreed by the parties at 230 days and also what is agreed between the parties is that, for one reason or another, in being previously sentenced, nine days of which Mr Morton has served have not been taken into account and need to be taken into account in this sentence on a R vRenzella [1999] VSCA 85 basis.
3The second matter confirmed the confirmation of the actual Family Violence Intervention Order that was breached by these charges. Both parties agree it is the order issued on the 30th day of January 2017 and served that day upon Mr Morton, a copy of which order will now become Exhibit C. I refer to the explanation in regard to that order in footnote (2) of Exhibit A.
4The third matter was the tendering of the amended priors sheet of both prior and subsequent offending and the summaries insofar as such offending is concerned. The sentence pronounced on 30 August 2018 in the Sunshine Magistrates' Court is a prior only for the sixth charge. It involves theft of a mobile from the victim. As best I can understand it, two charges of unlawful assault, one occurring at a restaurant in February of 2017 with an assault by chopsticks, which is spoken about by Mr Focht, and there is also a summary of an assault on 22 May 2018. There is also a breach of a Family Violence Intervention Order which relates to February 2017 and the sentence pronounced was 90 days. However, the time served by way of pre-sentence detention was 99 days, that is the reason why we have the nine Renzella days that have been agreed.
5There was also a further summary of Mr Osborne that related to offending on the 6th day of March 2017 which was a prior sentence handed down on the 10th day of November 2017 and came up for breach of a community correction order on the 30th of August 2018. As indicated in the priors, Mr Morton had previously been given a community correction order for being in possession of a handgun, being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and also being in possession of proceeds in the sum of $11,490. Having breached that community correction order, by the criminality that I have already referred to concerning his partner, it might be thought, somewhat remarkable given the seriousness of those crimes for which he had been previously given a community correction order, that he was only sentenced to a fine of $2,000. However, that is not a matter for me to be concerned with.
6The new documents also show subsequent convictions, firstly at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court on 24 April 2019 when Mr Morton was convicted of theft of a motor car, two charges of handle stolen goods and driving whilst suspended. Mr Morton was given 90 days' gaol for which he served pre-sentence detention of 90 days. The last subsequent convictions were on the 6th day of February 2020 when he was fined $900 for a contravention of a condition of bail. I am not sure whether that is the reason why the bail granted by Coghlan J in July 2019 was subsequently revoked on the 18th day of September 2020.
7It was put by the prosecutor that I should take into account that there are further offences alleged against the prisoner in regard to Ms Freeman[2] in the period 21 March 2020 to 25 March 2020. I indicated to the prosecutor I do not intend to take that into account, as such is not appropriate. I suppose the only comment that I will make when subsequently reading one of the medical reports, it was suggested that this toxic relationship was over. It sounds at least, without considering the truth of the allegations, but certainly something must have been happening between the parties in March of this year.
[2] Pseudonym used.
8I was also asked to read the whole of the prison Arunta recordings which relate to Charge 2. I agree with Mr McMahon that it shows the toxic relationship between the prisoner and Ms Freeman. It was put by Mr McMahon that it was necessary for me to take this into account to understand the context of the offending. True it is that there are a remarkable number of calls that make up Charges 1 and then Charges 3 to 6. The only call whereby a charge of this type has been laid is that as detailed in [9] of Exhibit A, being the prosecution opening.
9Given the invitation I did indeed read the recordings of 28 May 2018, which involved some four different recordings. I found the whole conversation appalling, given the humiliation and threats coming from the prisoner. There was a number of threats issued by Mr Morton against Ms Freeman and her friends. However, I stress as that point was made by Mr McMahon, the only matter that I am concerned with is Charge 2, set out at pp.50-51 of the Arunta transcript, Exhibit D.
10Coming then to the charges themselves, Mr Morton is aged 48. Mr Morton was born in July 1972 and through the period of criminality that I am dealing with in indictment J12973495.1, was aged between 45 and 46. The relationship with Ms Freeman had apparently lasted for some five years. There was a two-year separation and these breaches relate to the intervention order issued on the 30th day of January 2017.
11There are five charges of breach of the Family Violence Intervention Order under s.125A(1) of the Family Violence Protection Act. The maximum sentence for this crime is five years imprisonment and or 60 penalty units.
12The offences involve:
a.Charge 1, 105 calls made from the prison to Ms Freeman, the victim, from 28 May 2018 to 19 June 2018;
b.Charge 3, 94 such calls from 26 June 2018 to 20 July 2018;
c.Charge 4, 141 calls from 21 July 2018 to 16 August 2018; and
d.Charge 5, 37 calls from 20 August 2018 to 29 August 2018.
13Insofar as Charges 1, 3, 4 and 5 there is one prior offence for breach of Family Violence Intervention Order insofar as Mr Freeman is concerned. However, with the subsequent conviction on 30 August 2018, Charge 6 are committed on the basis of having two such priors.
14Charge 6 occurs over the period 27 October 2018 to 1 November 2018. Firstly, on 27 October 2018 being 46 occasions on which Mr Morton phoned Ms Freeman. It also involves Mr Morton parking all day outside her home. On 28 October another 42 phone calls, a period in which Mr Morton was parked outside the home, his entry into the property and him looking through the window and staring at the protected person. The photographs showing that criminality have been tendered today and are Exhibit E.
15Charge 6 involves further phone calls on 29 October 2018 on four occasions, again with him appearing outside the home, where Mr Morton was again captured by way of video and that photograph is tendered today as Exhibit F. Further, on 30 October 2018 there are another 75 calls; on 31 October 2018 another 130 calls, and on 1 November 2018 13 such calls.
16Insofar as Charge 2 is concerned, Charge 2 is an offence under s.21 of the Crimes Act 1958, of recklessly threaten to inflict serious injury upon a person. The maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament is one of five years imprisonment. This threat took place in the conversation recorded and set out in the prosecution summary on p.50-51 of the Arunta transcript.
17The prisoner was arrested on the 14th day of November 2018. Mr Morton was bailed ultimately by the Supreme Court on 25 July 2019 and the matter resolved on the 6th day of July 2020, subsequent to a committal which occurred on the 27th day of May in 2019 when there was cross-examination of the victim. Bail was granted by Coghlan J, and revoked apparently for a breach of bail conditions on 18 September 2020. As I say, the pre-sentence detention is agreed at 230 days with Renzella time at nine days.
18The victim impact statement was tendered and read to the Court, Exhibit B. The statement was redacted by the prosecution because there are a number of matters that do not relate to these charges and I do not take into account those matters. The comments in the victim impact statement refer, of course, to details emanating out of that whole relationship, and to the impact upon Ms Freeman of that whole relationship. It is obviously necessary for me to take into account her comments in the context only of these charges, despite the generality of the victim impact statement.
19This offending took place while the prisoner was on a community correction order, and as I have previously said, from the time Mr Morton was aged 45 through to 46. In looking at his prior offences, they go back to when he was 39, to September of 1991. However, the first time Mr Morton was given gaol was not till March of 2011 when he was given two months for a driving offence.
20It would appear from the material that I will come to later that from 2013 Mr Morton’s life seems to have gone off the track, in particular as a result of his addiction to drugs, but also as a result of using drugs to overcome the loss of his brother, who died at around such time. Significantly, Mr Morton came before the Court for a serious criminal offence in December of 2013 involving handling offences, burglary and proceeds. He was given an eight-month suspended gaol sentence and a community correction order for 12 months. That went on appeal to the County Court in April of 2014 and the appeal was successful insofar as fines being imposed.
21Mr Morton, however, breached the terms of the suspended sentence and in April of 2014 the eight-month sentence was restored so that the first time that he actually experienced gaol was at the age of 41. In November of 2014 Mr Morton was sentenced to a further eight months aggregate for drug matters and trafficking in methamphetamine, and in May of 2017 all the above matters were set aside again on appeal. As I have said, then in November 2017 in regard to the same victim when Mr Morton was aged 45 he was convicted of an offence of a breach of a condition of Family Violence Intervention Order and fined $500.
22Mr Morton then came before the Court in November 2017 for proceeds, handgun and firearm matters when he was given a community correction order, that I have already referred to, for a period of 18 months. It was while on this community correction order that Mr Morton committed the offences that I have referred to and he was subsequently convicted on 30 August 2018, that is subsequent to him being released from gaol, and prior to Charge 6 of further offences, being theft, two unlawful assaults committed upon Ms Freeman and a breach of a Family Violence Intervention Order. For those offences Mr Morton was sentenced to 90 days' gaol for which he previously served pre-sentence detention of 99 days.
23The matters involved in the original community correction order imposed in November 2017 came up by way of breach in front of the same Court, and as I say, remarkably, Mr Morton was only fined, given the seriousness of what appears on its face, $2,000. However, I make the point that this is a second prior of a breach of a Family Violence Intervention Order which relates only to Charge 6 and also involves two assaults committed upon the same victim.
24Mr Morton has had post-offence convictions. The first was recorded on 24 April in 2019, being theft of motor car, two charges of handling and drive while suspended for which he got a sentence of 90 days. Mr Morton has pre-sentence detention of 90 days and his final conviction occurred on 6 February 2020 which was contravene a conduct condition of bail for which he was fined $900.
25Coming then to the plea, Mr McMahon accepted the facts as detailed in Exhibit A as being the facts upon which I am to sentence his client. Mr McMahon tendered a written submission and spoke to those submissions. Mr McMahon pointed out that each of the first five charges occurred while the prisoner was serving a prison sentence. Mr McMahon put to me that it was important to understand in regard to those offences the context, being the ongoing toxic relationship with the victim in this matter, Ms Freeman.
26Mr McMahon pointed out that during such period Ms Freeman had topped up Mr Morton’s canteen, had sent clothes to him, and indeed in the conversation which I subsequently read had indicated an intent to recant various portions of a statement she had made to the police. As to Charge 2, Mr McMahon submitted to the Court that of the hundreds of calls, this was the only one that was determined to amount to a threat of such nature, and I accept that all of the recordings were recorded by the Arunta prison system and, despite the contact being forbidden by the orders of the Court, Ms Freeman herself had voluntarily participated in such contact. It should be pointed out there is a specific provision of the Family Violence Protection Act that a victim is not liable to any punishment for such contact.
27The prosecutor submitted that the culpability here, despite the matters put by Mr McMahon, was mid-range owing to his persistent breach of his obligations. In regard to Charge 6, Ms Karamicov submitted that this was of much higher culpability, and that all of the crimes were aggravated, on her submission, by the fact they were committed while Mr Morton was on the community correction order, imposed on the 10th day of November 2017.
28I want to make it very clear, as was put by Mr McMahon and as I put to you,
Mr Morton, your criminal history cannot inform the gravity of the instant offences with which I am dealing. That is, that while your prior history can be taken into account in determining the sentence, you do not come up to be sentenced again for those priors, and I want to make that very clear. As the Courts say, your priors cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offence.29However, while your prior history cannot inform the gravity of an offence, the High Court in Veen (No 2) [1988] 164 CLR 465, [477] said:
'Such priors are relevant to show whether the instant offence is an uncharacteristic aberration or whether the offender has manifested in his commission of the instant offence a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law. In the latter case retribution, deterrence, and protection of society may all indicate that a more severe penalty is warranted. It is legitimate to take account of the antecedent criminal history when it illuminates the moral culpability of the offender in the instant case or shows his dangerous propensity or shows a need to impose condign punishment to deter the offender or other offenders from committing further offences of such kind.'
30That quotation is particularly relevant as far as you are concerned, given your background and specific priors for this type of offending.
31As I say, I accept the matters put by Mr McMahon as to the criminality and the context of such criminality, in particular in regard to Charges 1, 3 through to 5. As to Charge 6, I do not accept that the criminality there can be classified as mid-range. In my view, such criminality is quite serious. You, Mr Morton, decided, albeit having recently been released from prison for similar offences against your wife, to deliberately breach the condition in a number of ways on those days which I have detailed. You committed family violence, you damaged property, you came into contact with the protected person, you attended the forbidden address, and indeed photographs were tendered of your actions on the premises on that day of you looking into the window, thereby terrifying the victim.
32I also want to mention the manner in which this indictment is laid. When I questioned both counsel as to this, I was advised there is no authority as to the circumstances where five different charges are laid. I understand that given the terms of s.125A(2)(b) of the Act, it is the practice of the Director to charge separately for each 28-day period by way of breaches of such an order.
33Mr McMahon submitted that what the Court should be doing is considering all of the charges essentially as a rolled-up charge. Given the attitude taken by the prosecution, it seems to me the only way to sentence is to tackle it, as is required by the High Court in Dalgliesh [2017] 91 ALJR 1063, 1075, that is in regard to each charge upon the facts that relate to each charge. However, given the period over which such has occurred the issue of totality is obviously very important and, as Mr McMahon said to the Court, the need for considerable concurrency in any sentence.
34Given those matters, Mr McMahon had no issue that the appropriate sentence, owing to the priors of Mr Morton and persistent nature of the offending, can only be one of gaol. However, Mr McMahon submitted that in all the circumstances which he put to the Court, which I will go on to detail, that the period of imprisonment served by way of pre-sentence detention, and taking into account the Renzella days, is sufficient given the totality of the criminality in this matter.
35Ms Karamicov submitted that the time served in all the circumstances was inadequate. Ms Karamicov reminded the Court of the domestic violence scenario under which these offences were committed, and the very recent concern expressed by the Courts, the Government, and the community as to persons such as Mr Morton who commit such breaches. Ms Karamicov also pointed to the persistence, that is that such offending occurred over a period of 158 days, totaling some 697 breaches. Ms Karamicov submitted as I have already found that Charge 6 itself was a very serious breach of Mr Morton’s obligations under the order, and that I should take the view, which I do, that the threat issued in regard to Charge 2 was a significant threat. In those circumstances, the prosecutor submitted that the principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation and punishment must rank high in this sentence.
36Coming then to the matters of mitigation put by Mr McMahon. The first was that the indictment was resolved and involved a reduction of an original eight-charge to a six-charge indictment. That by such cooperation and expression of remorse Mr Morton had assisted the course of justice; that he had, which I accept, to the amended indictment made his plea at the earliest time; that the plea was therefore utilitarian in the sense that it did not involve the victim in a trial, albeit that she had been cross-examined; and in the terms as expressed recently in the Supreme Court in the matter of Bourke [2020] VSC 130, [32], given the emergency circumstances that the Court is dealing with. It was of particular assistance to the attainment of justice in that Mr Morton willingly entered into the emergency case management scheme conducted by this Court because of the COVID-19 crisis, and albeit that the proceedings did not eventuate in a sentence indication being given, they did result in the plea.
37Mr McMahon also pointed the Court to the fact that Charges 1, 3 to 6 could otherwise have been heard in the Magistrates' Court, but for Charge 2 and the original alleged perversion of the course of justice matter. Mr McMahon also asked the Court to take into account, and I do, that the plea must be seen as valuable given the issues raised as to the character of the victim and the reliability issues as to her oral statement.
38The second matter that Mr McMahon put was that the Court should take into account that since being placed on remand, on a second occasion on 18 August of this year, Mr Morton has had to undergo a 14-day lockdown upon admission and has therefore had to suffer the risks of contagion within the system although, to give the system its due, it clearly is the best bureaucracy that we are aware of in Victoria because no such contagion has taken place within the prison system. That is not to say that persons are not living under the risk of such.
39I also note, as has been taken into account on many occasions by the Supreme Court in recent months, the restrictions under which the prisoner has had to live and also the reduction in programs that Mr Morton would otherwise have undertaken as indicated by Exhibit 6.
40It was further put by Mr McMahon that the provisions of Verdins 5 and 6 apply. I have read Exhibit 3, which is Dr Lester Walton's report dated 25 June 2019. I note that Mr Morton has been affected by drug issues since the age of 25 as reported on p.2 of Dr Walton's report. I also note the opinion of Mr Morton suffering depression, in particular since his brother died in 2013. However, one has to note that that was seven years ago. I note the opinion as to his immaturity and the positive view of Dr Walton of this toxic relationship being over, although I make the point that we allegations, subsequent to this report, in regard to an alleged further breaches.
41As to the Dr Paul Grech report, Dr Grech being a psychologist, 23 October 2020, Exhibit 4, Dr Grech sees Mr Morton’s depression as being particularly related to his ongoing legal issues; however, he notes the six sessions conducted of behavioral therapy were done voluntarily in March and April of this year. Mr McMahon has also advised the Court that recently he has undergone a further such behavioural therapy consultation. Dr Grech confirmed the history of drugs and grief issues related to Mr Morton’s brother.
42In analysing all of that material, I did not find it necessary to refer to Mr Newton's report which I read and is dated 14 March 2017, but in analysing that material I accept the prosecution submission that Verdins 5 or 6 are not established.
43As to Mr Morton’s personal history, I note the character reference, Exhibit 5, of his former wife, Angelica[3]. I note that Mr Morton is a provider for his family and continues to provide by way of school fees for his sons. I note Mr Morton’s history as a hard worker, confirmed by Angelica, and his drug addiction and the impact of his brother's death. Clearly, Mr Morton had had a 20-year business to that time and indeed had built some 42 homes in Cairnlea. He has gone off the track in approximately 2013, as I said his priors indicate. Angelica also indicates the very dramatic effect on his life of drugs. Unfortunately, as his former wife points out, their marriage broke down in 2014.
[3] Pseudonym used.
44I note that in remand, as Exhibit 6 demonstrates, the number of programs that Mr Morton has undertaken albeit now suspended. Mr McMahon was good enough to provide the Court with two references of sentences which he felt would assist the Court. DPP v Schmidt (pseudonym) [2020] VCC 479, a determination of His Honour Judge Tinney, and one of His Honour Judge Doyle, DPP v Anthony Alexander(pseudonym) [2020] VCC 124. I give judicial comity to my brothers' sentences. Schmidt involved far worse offending that I am dealing with in the sense of the aggravated burglary matters, albeit that the breaches of the Family Violence Intervention Order were serious but committed over a period of some two days. I note the period of gaol imposed in that matter.
45In Alexander, again the offending was over a much shorter period. The conversations involved were even more offensive and crude than the prisoner in this matter indulged in; however, they were part of a sentence which involved two assaults and stalking matters. However, I accept that both sentences can be used by this Court as guideposts, but in the end in regard to each of the offences as set out in Dalgliesh, what I must do is provide on the basis of the facts in each case an individualised just sentence on the basis of instinctive synthesis related to the circumstances of that charge.
46I am also mindful, as pointed out to me by Mr McMahon, of the need not to impose double punishment because of the factual overlap in regard to Charges 1 and 2. I also accept the submission made as to the need for cumulation to be taken into account in regard to Charges 1, 3 through to 6 and the need for moderation in those circumstances to ensure that totality is taken into account.
47Mr Morton, given that recital of the circumstances relevant to your sentence it would normally be the practice, as you know, for me to ask you to stand. Given the circumstances and your remand, I will not. I will simply pronounce the sentences as follow. You will be convicted on all six charges.
48In regard to Charge 1, the first of the breaches of the Family Violence Intervention Order, you will be sentenced to imprisonment of six months.
49Charge 2, being the threat against your ex-partner, you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of six months.
50Charge 3, imprisonment of six months.
51Charge 4, imprisonment of six months.
52Charge 5, imprisonment of three months, and the most serious charge of all, Charge 6, imprisonment of nine months.
53Using the period of nine months' imprisonment in regard to Charge 6 as the base sentence, I order that two months of the sentence imposed in Charge 2 and one month of each of the sentences imposed in Charges 1, 3, 4 and 5, be cumulated upon the head sentence. That means that of the nine months imposed in Charge 6, cumulated will be two months of the sentence imposed in Charge 2 and one month of each of the sentences in Charges 1, 3, 4 and 5, making a further four months to be added, making a total effective sentence therefore of 15 months imprisonment.
54I order that the non-parole period that you must serve before being eligible for parole is a period of 11 months.
55As agreed, I declare pursuant to the provisions of the Sentencing Act that the pre-sentence detention that you have served of 230 days be deemed service of this sentence and that declaration will be recorded in the records of this Court. I formally record that in passing sentence upon you I have taken into account the agreed nine Renzella days.
56Pursuant to the provisions of s.6AAA, Mr Morton, it is not something perhaps you want to hear after being sentenced to a term of imprisonment, but it is a requirement of Parliament that I tell you what would have been the sentence had you not pleaded guilty to these six charges. Can I tell you that had you not pleaded guilty, the sentence I would have imposed would not have been a period of 15 months with a minimum of 11 months to serve, but a period of 19 months with a minimum of 15 months to serve. However, that is a difficult statement because it relates to only one factor of you pleading guilty, and as you have heard, there are many factors I have taken into account in your sentence.
57You will be sentenced therefore to a total effective sentence of 15 months and you will have to serve a non-parole period of 11 months after the 230 days is taken into account.
58Are there any matters that I need to clarify for either counsel?
59MS VAN DEN AKKER: Yes, Your Honour. Bail was actually revoked on this matter on 18 July 2020. It was an error in the opening that said 18 July. It is 18 September 2020.
60HER HONOUR: We will make that note, thank you.
61MS VAN DEN AKKER: And also in relation to the persistent contravention of family violence intervention order charges, I just didn't hear properly. Did Your Honour say that the prosecution had limited those to a 20-day period, because it's actually a 28-day period.
62HIS HONOUR: Sorry, what are you talking about now?
63MS VAN DEN AKKER: The drafting of the persistent charges.
64HIS HONOUR: Yes, a 28-day period.
65MS VAN DEN AKKER: Your Honour indicated that - - -
66HIS HONOUR: Did I say 20 and not 28?
67MS VAN DEN AKKER: If Your Honour pleases.
68HIS HONOUR: I meant to say 28, it was probably my writing. The drafting was to each 28-day period, is it not?
69MS VAN DEN AKKER: Yes, Your Honour.
70HIS HONOUR: And that is the practice of the Director.
71MS VAN DEN AKKER: Yes, Your Honour.
72HIS HONOUR: Mr McMahon, any matters from your side?
73MR McMAHON: Your Honour, I just need to ask a question because the sound broke up periodically right at the critical moment. Has Your Honour imposed a sentence of 15 months with a minimum of 11 months?
74HIS HONOUR: Yes.
75MR McMAHON: And then allowed pre-sentence detention of 230 days?
76HIS HONOUR: That is correct.
77MR McMAHON: Thank you, Your Honour.
78HIS HONOUR: Thank you both. Thank you for your assistance. Good luck, Mr Morton. Let us hope that relationship is over for everyone. It has not dealt you a very good hand, or the victim. The less you see of each other the better, I would think. Yes, thank you.
79MR McMAHON: If the Court pleases.
NOTE: The Final Order was amended on 23 November 2020 by His Honour Judge McInerney pursuant to s. 412 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, in respect to the non-parole period. The non-parole period was amended to 9 months imprisonment.
---
2
4
0