Director of Public Prosecutions v Muhumed
[2019] VCC 134
•19 February 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-18-00758
Indictment No. H13048900.1
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MUSTAFA MUHUMED |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE TRAPNELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 13 February 2019 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 19 February 2019 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Muhumed | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 134 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – Armed robbery – Three armed robberies committed at night against retail outlets within 24 hour period – Accused complicit by assisting and encouraging armed co-offender – Lower mid-range offending – Pleas of not guilty – Convictions at trial – Offender of African origin from violent and disadvantaged background – Intellectual disability – PTSD – Alcohol use disorder – Intoxicated at time of offending
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 –Summary Offences Act1966 – Bail Act1977 – Criminal Procedure Act2009 – Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 – Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 57 – Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600 –Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119 – DPP v O’Neill (2015) 47 VR 395 – R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
Sentence: Total effective sentence: imprisonment for 4 years, 6 months and 28 days with a 3 year non-parole period
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms E Tueno (Plea) Ms F Skepper (Sentence) | Mr J Cain, Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms M Brown (Plea) Mr T Hancock (Sentence) | Ann Valos Criminal Law |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Mustafa Muhumed, after a trial which lasted some four days you were convicted by the jury of three counts of armed robbery. On your arraignment before the jury you pleaded guilty to alternative charges of theft in respect of charges 1 and 2 and robbery in respect of charge 3. These pleas were not accepted by the Crown in satisfaction of the indictment.
2 You have agreed to have me deal with five related summary offences which have been transferred to this court pursuant to s145 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. They comprise: one charge of throw missile to injure (charge 5);[1] one charge of unlawful assault (charge 6);[2] and three charges of commit an indictable offence whilst on bail (charges 9, 10 and 11).[3] These Bail Act offences are referrable to the three armed robbery charges.
[1] Contrary to Summary Offences Act 1966 s7(g).
[2] Contrary to Summary Offences Act 1966 s23.
[3] Contrary to Bail Act 1977 s30B.
3 The maximum penalties for these offences are: armed robbery, 25 years’ imprisonment; throw missile to injure, 6 months’ imprisonment and/or 25 penalty units; unlawful assault, 3 months’ imprisonment and/or 15 penalty units; and commit indictable offence whilst on bail, 3 months’ imprisonment and/or 30 penalty units.
The facts
4 The circumstances surrounding the commission of these offences were brought out clearly during the trial. You committed the offences of armed robbery in company with Deng Akon Deng, who I accept is the principal offender in relation to the three armed robbery offences.
5 At the time of the offending Deng was staying at his girlfriend’s home in a multilevel Housing Commission apartment block in Holland Court, Flemington. You were staying with Deng and his girlfriend. These premises were a short distance from the scenes of the armed robberies.
Armed robbery – Thirsty Camel (Charge 1)
6 At approximately midnight on 24 October 2017 you and Deng walked into the Thirsty Camel bottle shop, which forms part of the Quiet Man Irish Pub in Racecourse Road, Flemington. The attendant, Sean Fitzsimmons, was working behind the counter of the bottle shop at the time. Deng pulled out a screwdriver, which was approximately a foot long and swung it at Fitzsimmons, who moved backwards. Deng and you then took a six-pack of Carlton Draft beer from the shop.
7 CCTV footage of this armed robbery was tendered as Exhibit P3 in the trial. The CCTV footage shows that it was you who left the bottle shop carrying the six-pack of Carlton Draft beer.
8 Fitzsimmons ran into the main bar to alert the manager, John Boyce. Boyce and a regular patron of the hotel, Anthony Hoare, went into the bottle shop. They saw you and Deng crossing Racecourse Road walking away from the bottle shop.
Armed robbery – Thirsty Camel (Charge 2)
9 Approximately one minute later you and Deng returned to the bottle shop while Fitzsimmons, Boyce and Hoare were still present. Boyce tried to keep you and Deng away from Fitzsimmons and Hoare. He ushered Deng towards the spirits section of the bottle shop. Deng was holding a screwdriver and waving it around. Deng demanded alcohol and Boyce gave him two bottles of Jack Daniels bourbon. Deng demanded more alcohol, so Boyce handed him a third bottle of Jack Daniels bourbon.
10 While this was occurring, you were standing in the lower part of the bottle shop in a drive-through area. Whilst Boyce was dealing with Deng you approached the group of men and threw a stubby of beer in their direction. This gives rise to summary charge 5, throw missile to injure.
11 You then went to a fridge, while Deng was stealing the Jack Daniels from Boyce, and you removed a six-pack of Victoria Bitter beer cans. You then came around from the lower driveway area up onto the service area and threw another stubby of beer in the direction of Mr Boyce, which injured his hand. This gives rise to related summary charge 6, unlawful assault.
12 You and Deng then left the bottle shop and returned to the Holland Court apartment. The total value of alcohol stolen from the Thirsty Camel in the two armed robberies was $140.
Armed robbery – Subway (Charge 3)
13 Later that same day at approximately 10.00pm Sii Kiran Uppala was the sole attendant on duty at a Subway store in Racecourse Road, Flemington. He was closing up when you and Deng entered.
14 Uppala told you that the store was closed. Nonetheless, Deng went around the counter and showed Uppala a knife which he had concealed up the sleeve of his jacket. He exposed approximately 1 inch of the blade of the knife near the handle. Uppala saw the brown-coloured handle and part of the silver blade of the knife. Deng demanded that Uppala open the till. While Uppala was trying to open the till you walked around the service counter and pulled the till from underneath the counter. You can be seen on CCTV footage removing the cash drawer from underneath the counter and walking with it out of the store.
15 At the time of committing these offences you were on bail in relation to a charge of shoplifting. Accordingly there are three related summary charges of commit indictable offence whilst on bail, one in respect of each armed robbery (charges 9, 10 and 11). Since you have been charged with these separate offences, I must be careful not to doubly punish you by aggravating the sentences I impose on the armed robbery charges on account of you committing those crimes whilst you were on bail.
16 On 26 October 2017 you were identified by police as being one of the people who committed the armed robberies. On 2 November 2017 you were arrested at a unit in Racecourse Road, Flemington and conveyed to the Melbourne West police station, where you were interviewed in relation to these offences. You denied committing any offences and you denied that the person depicted in the CCTV footage was you.
17 The Crown allegation, which the jury must have accepted, was that you were complicit in the armed robberies committed by Deng by assisting and/or encouraging him. However, it is clear from the Crown witnesses’ evidence and my viewing of the CCTV footage that you actively participated in all three armed robberies with Deng and you became personally physically involved with the attendants at the second armed robbery of the Thirsty Camel and the third armed robbery at the Subway store.
Victim impact
18 A victim impact statement from Mr Fitzsimmons was tendered on the plea.[4] Mr Fitzsimmons has suffered emotionally from the armed robberies at the Thirsty Camel. He suffers hyper-vigilance, anxiety, fear and worry. His sleep pattern has been affected and relationships changed because of disengagement from social groups and employment.
[4] Exhibit P1.
19 No victim impact statement was prepared by Mr Boyce or Mr Uppala. Nonetheless, where no victim impact statement has been tendered a sentencer may draw reasonable inferences regarding the likely impact of an offence upon any victim. I am satisfied in this case the armed robberies committed on Mr Boyce and Mr Uppala would have had some adverse impacts on each of them.
Offence seriousness
20 Armed robbery is a very serious criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, which is the highest fixed maximum penalty in the criminal calendar. This indicates the seriousness with which the legislature on behalf of the Victorian community views this offence.
21 Your counsel conceded this is an inherently serious offence, although she described your offending in the Thirsty Camel armed robberies as being towards the lower end of the range of offences of this kind. I do not accept this characterisation. In my opinion all three offences constitute lower mid-range offending. The offences were committed at night against ‘soft targets’. In the cases of charges 1 and 3 the victims were alone at the time.
22 Nonetheless, I accept the offences involved little planning or sophistication. You did not take measures to conceal your identity and no actual force or physical violence was used by you or your co-offender against the victims. You made no direct threat of force towards any victim. Moreover, the value of the goods and the amount of cash stolen were relatively small,
23 However, the weapons Deng used were capable of causing significant injury if any of the armed robberies had escalated into actual physical violence. This is particularly so in the case of charge 3, where a kitchen knife was used. I find this is a concerning aspect of that offending conduct.
24 Your offences appear to have been motivated by your need to obtain alcohol and/or money to buy alcohol, which you regularly drink to excess. As your counsel fairly accepted, while this provides some explanation for why you committed these offences, it is not a mitigating circumstance in and of itself. I will deal in more detail with aspect later in these reasons for sentence.
Personal circumstances
25 You are an Australian citizen of Somalian origin. You are now aged 32 years[5] and you were 30 years of age at the time of committing the offences.
[5] Date of birth is 25 December 1986.
26 You came to Australia at the age of 17 with your mother and six surviving siblings after spending most of your childhood in refugee camps. Your family had fled Somalia during the civil war in that country. Apparently you were quite a good soccer player when you were living in the refugee camps.
27 Your mother, five sisters, and one brother live in the Flemington/Kensington area of Melbourne. Whilst not condoning your behaviour, they remain largely supportive of you. I note your mother was present in court during the trial and at the plea hearing. Your counsel advised that it is anticipated that you will reside with your mother upon your eventual release from custody.
28 From 2014 to 2016 you returned to Somalia and discovered that your father, whom you had thought was dead, was still alive. You visited him in a refugee camp. You married during that period and your wife gave birth to a daughter. Your wife and daughter remain in Somalia. It is your intention to bring them to Australia, however your efforts have been unsuccessful to date.
29 You told Ms Mynard, a clinical psychologist who prepared a report at the request of your legal representatives, that your mother is very disappointed in you, and that you feel you have let her down. You have apparently not had any contact with your wife or daughter since you have been in custody. I accept that this situation gives rise to a degree of custodial hardship and I will take this into account in your favour.
30 So far as your education is concerned, you attended primary schools in the refugee camp and learnt English to some extent. You left school at the age of 15 and went to live in South Africa for two years to try and support your family. While you were in South Africa you were seriously injured in a stabbing attack. You eventually gained employment there as a helper to taxi drivers by getting customers into their taxis.
31 Since arriving in Australia you have never worked, and had been on Centrelink benefits intermittently until your identification was stolen. You have since struggled to get back onto any social security benefit.
32 You are currently incarcerated at Barwon Prison where you have been working in a factory for about seven months. You have also been attending meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and you instructed your counsel that you have completed some English language and computer skills courses.
Substance abuse history
33 You drank alcohol intermittently whilst in the refugee camp and smoked cannabis ‘once in a while’. You admit that since living in Australia you have uncontrollably drunk alcohol for many years. Your normal practice was to drink every day until you passed out. You also had a daily cannabis habit. You told Ms Mynard that you used alcohol in an attempt to cope, to fit in with others, and to relieve boredom. In the past you have experimented with heroin and methylamphetamines, but you are not a regular user of these substances.
34 Ms Mynard administered the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) to ascertain the level of your problem drinking. You scored in the highest possible level of severity. Unsurprisingly, she diagnosed you as suffering alcohol dependence disorder and cannabis use disorder.
35 Ms Mynard noted that your level of insight regarding the present offending was only moderate. She also observed that your level of judgment has been significantly impaired over the years owing to your high degree of intoxication and an inability to make clear and reasoned decisions.
36 Your counsel informed me you have remained abstinent from alcohol and cannabis whilst in custody, and you intend to remain abstinent in the future. It is to be hoped that whilst you are on parole you can receive assistance to help you to achieve this ambition. However, as is always the case, much will depend upon your will to turn your life around.
37 In this regard I note that while you have been in custody you have been linked into the African Social Support Program called ‘Linkout’. The members of this program visit you regularly and you happily accept their support. It is to be hoped that this support will continue upon your eventual release from custody and assist your reintegration back into the community as a law abiding citizen.
Mental health
38 Ms Mynard administered the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (for DSM‑IV), a self-report questionnaire that focuses on the symptoms and severity of PTSD. She diagnosed you as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
39 You also completed the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale 21, which is a self-report questionnaire that measures the symptoms and severity of these clusters of symptoms. You scored in the moderate range of depression, severe range of stress, and extremely severe range of anxiety. Consequently, Ms Mynard diagnosed you as suffering a major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder.
40 Ms Mynard also administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS‑IV). Your verbal comprehensive score was very low, your perceptual reasoning was low average, your processing speed was very low and your working memory was extremely low. Ms Mynard assessed your full-scale IQ as being only 71. This means you fall within the lowest 3 percentile of the population and within the category of ‘borderline cognitive functioning’.
41 Accordingly, I have applied the principles in Muldrock v The Queen[6] to sensibly moderate the weight I would otherwise have given to general deterrence on account of your low intellectual functioning. I will also sentence you on the basis that your moral culpability is lessened by reason of your intellectual disability.[7]
[6] (2011) 244 CLR 120, 138 [53]–[54] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
[7] Ibid 139 [54].
42 I will also take into account your deprived background and the trauma you suffered growing up in Somalia during the civil war in that country. You suffered further deprivation in the refugee camp and in South Africa. It seems that there is some linkage between these factors, which may not greatly diminish with the passage of time, and your alcohol abuse which led to you committing the present offences. This is another mitigating factor which I take into account in your favour.[8] However, this consideration must be balanced with the seriousness of your offending conduct.[9]
[8] See Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571, 592–5 [37]–[40] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ), 598 [56] (Gageler J).
[9] Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600, 621 [57] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ) (‘Munda’).
43 I am not satisfied that any other Verdins principles[10] are engaged in this case by reason of your other mental conditions as identified in Ms Mynard’s report. It seems to me that there is no sufficient causal connection between these conditions and the offending conduct such as to warrant any further moderation in the principle of general deterrence or otherwise.[11]
[10] R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.
[11] See DPP v O’Neill (2015) 47 VR 395, 410 [59] (Warren CJ, Redlich and Kaye JJA).
44 I observe that whilst your moral culpability is reduced by reason of your social disadvantage, this also acts to increase the weight I must give to specific deterrence and protection of the community.[12]
[12] See R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67, 68 (Gleeson CJ); Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119 [16]–[18] (Redlich and Tate JJA).
45 My sentence must also vindicate the dignity of your victims and reflect the community’s disapproval of your offending conduct by way of the weight I give to denunciation.[13]
[13] Ibid; Munda 618–620 [50]–[55] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ).
46 In her report Ms Mynard hypothesises as a ‘likelihood’ that you have deteriorated further in your overall cognitive and executive functioning due to an alcohol-related brain injury. However, there was no evidence put before me sufficient for me to sentence you on the basis that you do suffer from this condition.
47 Ms Mynard notes that there is no evidence that you are finding incarceration more difficult than others, and accordingly there is no further mitigation for custodial hardship over and above what I will allow for separation from your wife and child in Somalia and, to some lesser extent, separation from your mother and siblings here in Victoria.
Prior criminal history
48 You have a substantial prior criminal history dating back to July 2006. This is perhaps indicative of the social disadvantage and intellectual disability from which you suffer. Nonetheless, it is a significant matter in my instinctive sentencing synthesis.
49 In December 2006 you received a sentence of three years’ youth training centre for rape, assault with intent to rape, and common law assault. Since then you have accumulated a large number of offences involving violence, dishonesty, damage to property and resisting and assaulting police.
50 In the past you have failed to comply a community-based order and you have breached suspended sentences by reoffending. You also committed a prison offence in 2012 and you have a prior conviction for possessing a controlled weapon in May 2012.
51 Significantly you have a prior conviction for robbery in September 2013, for which you were sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight months’ imprisonment.
52 It is a matter of significant concern that at the time of committing the present offences you were on a community correction order which had been imposed at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 2 May 2017, for charges which included attempted burglary and theft from a shop. You committed the present offences only five months after that appearance. Moreover, at the time of committing these offences you were on bail for theft from a shop.
Parity
53 A significant factor in sentencing you is the parity principle which applies in relation to the sentence imposed on your co‑offender Deng Akon Deng. He was sentenced by his Honour Judge Mason on 1 June 2018 on two charges of armed robbery.[14] Charge 1 on that indictment was a rolled-up charge comprising the offending conduct represented by charges 1 and 2 on your indictment. Charge 2 on Deng’s indictment was the same as charge 3 on your indictment. Consequently, you both face effectively the same charges.
[14] DPP v Deng, unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Mason, 1 June 2018 (‘Deng’).
54 Deng was also sentenced for a related summary offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. Given that you also face three such charges I must be careful not to impose double punishment on you. I will sentence you for the three discrete offences of committing an indictable offence on bail and I will not take that factor into account in sentencing you for the three armed robberies.
55 On charge 1 (armed robbery) Deng was convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and on charge 2 (armed robbery) he was also convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. On the related summary charge he was convicted and sentenced to 1 month’s imprisonment. His Honour ordered six months’ cumulation of the sentence imposed on charge 2 with the sentence he imposed on charge 1. This made a total effective sentence in Deng’s case of 18 months’ imprisonment. On charges 1 and 2 his Honour further ordered that Deng serve a community correction order for a period of two years with 200 hours of unpaid community work and supervision and rehabilitative conditions.
56 Deng had pleaded guilty at an early opportunity to the charges he faced. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 his Honour declared that but for Deng’s plea of guilty he would have imposed a total effective sentence of four years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of three years’ imprisonment.
57 Deng was aged 22 at the time of sentence; he therefore fell to be sentenced as a youthful offender. Moreover, he had a very moderate prior criminal history, consisting of mainly street offences and breaches of bail, for which he had received only fines by way of disposition.[15] Accordingly, he effectively fell to be sentenced as a youthful first offender who had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and demonstrated true contrition and remorse.[16]
[15] I note that Judge Mason referred to Deng having a prior conviction for aggravated burglary in 2010 (see Deng [34]). However, his prior criminal history file in iManage does not show this. (See exhibit D4 on Muhumed’s plea).
[16] Deng [36].
58 You have none of these considerations in your favour; however, you do have your deprived background and impaired intellectual functioning, the latter of which was not relevant in sentencing Deng. Moreover, Deng was the principal offender, being the person armed with the screwdriver in the Thirsty Camel armed robberies and the knife in the Subway armed robbery.
59 I am very cognisant of the need to impose a sentence on you which is not unfairly disparate with the sentence imposed on Deng; however, it is clear from the mitigating circumstances relevant in his case that you will receive a sentence greater than that imposed on Deng.
60 Deng had also suffered a similar history in Sudan to yours history in Somalia. Deng was also seen by a psychologist who diagnosed Alcohol Use Disorder and Stimulant Use Disorder in his case. Deng was also on bail at the time of committing these offences.
61 In sentencing Deng, his Honour specifically took into account in mitigation the following matters:
(i) his youthfulness,
(ii) his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, which his Honour held was indicative of remorse,
(iii) his personal circumstances in Sudan and Egypt, his subsequent migration to Australia as a refugee, and the difficulties he suffered adjusting to life in this country,
(iv) his lack of maturity and longstanding polysubstance addiction,
(v) his expressions of remorse,
(vi) the efforts he had made to rehabilitate himself whilst in custody, and
(vii) the support he had from his partner and his family.[17]
[17] Deng [36].
62 It is clear that the fact that Deng was effectively a youthful first offender serving his first sentence in an adult prison weighed heavily on his Honour, and no doubt moved him to impose what some might regard as a lenient sentence.[18] It is also relevant that his Honour applied Boulton’s case[19] to Deng’s sentencing exercise; a case which your counsel agreed has no relevance in sentencing you. Her submission was that the only appropriate sentence in your case was a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period.[20] The prosecutor agreed.
[18] Deng [42], [45].
[19] (2014) 46 VR 308.
[20]Outline of Submissions for the Accused (Exhibit D1) [8.1].
Pleas
63 You have pleaded not guilty to these charges, which is your right, but it means you can receive no discount on sentence for pleading guilty to the charges for which you fall to be sentenced.
64 So far as the pleas of guilty you entered before the jury are concerned, the plea of guilty to robbery on charge 3 is worthy of being given some weight. It demonstrates a degree of acceptance of responsibility by you for your offending conduct in relation to that armed robbery and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice by confining the issues in the trial. However, your pleas of guilty to theft in relation to charges 1 and 2, while not entirely irrelevant, are deserving of little weight in sentencing you. Nonetheless, the trial was conducted in a very efficient manner and your cooperation in this regard is deserving of some recognition.
Application of sentencing principles
65 I have had regard to current sentencing practices in relation to armed robbery in light of the decision of the High Court of Australia in DPP v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym).[21] Neither the Crown nor your counsel put material before me concerning current sentencing practices in relation to these offences.
[21](2017) 91 ALJR 1063.
66 It is difficult to gauge more than a very general yardstick from so-called ‘comparable cases’, given the wide range of offending conduct which can constitute these offences and the myriad of personal circumstances pertaining to individual offenders. Nonetheless, to the extent that I have been able to gain any assistance from comparable cases, I have sought to do so in your case.
67 The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, deterrence both specific and general, rehabilitation, denunciation, and protection of the community. In sentencing you I must have regard to a range of factors such as the seriousness of the offences, your culpability for them, the effects on your victims, and your personal circumstances.
68 I am required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure that, as far as possible, you are rehabilitated.
69 Given the serious nature of these offences general deterrence and denunciation must be given some weight as must just punishment. In your case I consider, in light of the circumstances I have previously referred to, weight also needs to be given to specific deterrence and protection of the community. Given your prior criminal history and the causes and circumstances of your offending conduct, I can only adopt a very cautious approach in assessing your prospects of rehabilitation.
70 Ultimately, I have concluded that the only appropriate sentence which will achieve the purposes for which these sentences are imposed are sentences of imprisonment with a non-parole period.[22]
[22]Sentencing Act 1991 s 5(4).
71 I will give effect to the totality principle by ordering a reasonably large measure of concurrency in recognition of the fact that these offences effectively form part of the one course of criminal conduct, committed by you in similar circumstances and over a relatively short period of time.
Stand up Mr Muhumed
On charge 1 (armed robbery) you will be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years.
On charge 2 (armed robbery) you will be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months.
On charge 3 (armed robbery) you will be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months.
On related summary charge 5 (throw missile to injury) you will be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 days.
On related summary charge 6 (unlawful assault of Mr Boyce) you will be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 14 days.
On related summary charge 9 (commit an indictable offence whilst on bail) you will be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 month.
On related summary charge 10 (commit an indictable offence whilst on bail) you will be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 month.
On related summary charge 11 (commit an indictable offence whilst on bail) you will be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 month.
I order that the sentence on charge 2 will be the base sentence. Six months of the sentence imposed on charge 1, 18 months of the sentence imposed on charge 3, 7 days of the sentence imposed on related summary charge 6 and 7 days of each of the sentences imposed on related summary charges 9, 10 and 11 are to be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on charge 2 and on each other. The sentence imposed on related summary charge 5 is to be served wholly concurrently with the other sentences imposed in this case.
This makes a total effective sentence of imprisonment for 4 years, 6 months and 28 days and I order that you serve a minimum term of 3 years’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
I certify that the period of pre‑sentence detention to be reckoned as a period already served under this sentence is 474 days, not including this day, and I direct that that declaration be entered in the records of the Court.
0
10
0