Director of Public Prosecutions v Murray (a pseudonym)

[2020] VCC 1475

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MUIR MURRAY (a pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE GUCCIARDO
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 September 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 September 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Murray (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 1475

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms S. Bolton	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Terry	Adrian Dessi Legal

HIS HONOUR:

1Muir Murray[1], you have pleaded guilty to one charge of incest in that you intentionally sexually penetrated the child of your domestic partner.  The indictment alleged in its particulars that you inserted your fingers and then your penis into the child's vagina. 

[1] A pseudonym.

2I wish to note from the beginning that the indictment as it was drawn alleged these penetrations in a composite way as if each was a composite part of a charge.  Although that term was not used in either the indictment proper or the summary of prosecution opening for plea which was tendered, neither of those documents had any other description and its form appeared to be so.

3The Court of Appeal has made clear that the term 'composite' charge should not be used.  (See Holland v R VSCA 241 and Schembriv R [2020] VSCA 217.) I queried the prosecution on this matter and indicated that I would treat the charge as a rolled up charged as it is commonly called.

4The prosecution confirmed that the matter had resolved as between on the parties on the basis of one rolled up charge.  That is the sentence that will be imposed should and will take into account the criminality of all of the conduct covered by the charge including the different forms of penetration in the course of the episode which operates to the advantage of the accused.

5In this case the compression of the charges into a single count is perhaps superfluous as it would not have burdened the indictment with multiple counts except two. Nevertheless, as I indicated his will be dealt with as a rolled-up count.

6The circumstances of the offending are summarised in a document tendered upon the plea and I shall refer to these agreed facts in brief outline.

7At the time of the offence on 6 September 2019 you were 32 years of age.  The child was aged 13.  You and the child's mother had been in a relationship for about 10 years.  You had known each other for more than 20 years, back to school days.  You have three children of your own together with her.  The father of the victim is your cousin.  When his relationship with the child's mother ended you commenced a relationship with her and for a significant period made in effect a family with her together with her child, the victim in this case and your children.

8In more recent times the relationship had changed.  At the time of the offence you were not living together but would see each other from time to time and you would have access to the four children on a regular basis.  For all intents and purposes you were the child's father.  She referred to you as such and you referred to her as your daughter.  During the subsequent interview with police you referred to her as such.

9When these reasons are published I will anonymise your name as well in order to avoid E[2] being identified.  I will refer to the child by the letter E for purposes of protecting her privacy and identity.

[2] A pseudonym.

10On 6 September of last year she was staying overnight at your place of residence with her other half-siblings B and C.  Child D, the youngest, was not there.  You took your mattress from your bedroom to the lounge room as was your habit when the children came to stay and did so to watch a movie and sleep together.  The children fell asleep there that night.  Sometime during the night you began to rub and massage E's back.  You told police that she was next to you and in your arms 'she felt like your partner.'  You then rubbed her breasts under her jumper. You then pulled her pants down and began rubbing her vagina with your hand. You asked her if she wanted you to stop.  At that time you told police you could not tell if she was awake and she said nothing.  You asked again on two occasions and the child, according to you, said 'no' and nodded agreement.

11Then as you were rubbing her stomach and rubbing her breasts you told police you asked her, 'Do you want me to put my finger in?'  She did not say anything.  You asked again and you said you were, 'Pretty sure [you] felt a yes, nodding her head', so you put your fingers in her vagina.  At that time you told police that at that time you asked, 'Do you want me to stop', but you felt her head shake as if she was saying, 'I want to but I'm scared'.

12You said, 'I should have stopped but when the head shook it was almost like "I want to but I'm scared"', and you added, 'If you want me to stop you tell me'.  In my view it is clear that at the time that you were engaging in this behaviour solely for your sexual gratification which was unlawful and utterly unacceptable.

13You reflected on the conduct and had turned your mind to the child's precarious position but you did not desist.  You ignored her welfare and innocence and placed the burden of stopping this vile conduct in her hands at a time when you plainly knew the wrongfulness of your behaviour.

14You then said to her, 'I want to put my penis in you', according to your interview.  Up to this point in her recorded statement E said that she had woken up because she felt something on her and she froze.  She was confused and did not really know what was happening.  She said you asked her if she wanted to 'to try it' in reference to what you had asked her to do and she says she was shaking and was really scared and nervous but she said okay.  You told police she just nodded. 

15You then led her into the bedroom. The mattress that was usually there was in the lounge room so you led her to a chest of drawers, she leant against it and sat on its edge.  You took a condom from your bedside table and put it on your penis.  You asked her, 'Are you sure?'  She said that ultimately she said yes.  You told the police she would not say anything. You lifted her leg into the air and penetrated her vagina with your penis. During this act the condom broke.  You removed her from your penis having taken it out of the complainant's vagina.  At this point you retrieved another condom from the drawer.  This was another point at which you could have desisted. 

16On your say so you had warned her it would hurt (Question 501) and you were not sure if it was hurting her (Question 527); however, you were intent only on satisfying your own gratification so having put another condom on and put saliva on it for lubrication, you then went to the bathroom, retrieved toothpaste and put it on the condom. You did so to render it a 'little bit more sensitive' for you.  You inserted your penis in the child's vagina again and after you ejaculated it you removed it from her.

17You told her not to tell her mother. The complainant describes being scared during this event and when you were asking her, she said she was scared 'that anything would happen. She didn't really know what to say'. You told her to get dressed while you went to the bathroom to clean yourself up.

18The next day E says you acted like nothing happened and she was still quite shocked about the whole thing. She went to school after that weekend, but on that Sunday you had a conversation with her about what had happened and she says she zoned out. You again told her not to tell her mother.

19On the 10th she was at school when she told her friend that she had lost her virginity because her stepfather had raped her.  Police were contacted and on the 13th you were arrested, taken to Box Hill police station and interviewed.  You made admissions to the offence - I will say something more about this - in the pretext calls which were made thereafter by E's mother to you and recorded by police. When making her formal complaint E told the police that the penetration hurt her.  She said she had gone along because she was really scared. 

20The court received a number of victim impact statements. I shall refer to them in a summary form.  They are extensive and powerful statements from family members of E. Her mother made two such statements, the first on 2 August 2020. She had written of the traumatic impact of receiving the news of the offence committed against her daughter.  She was angered of your description of E as 'looking fine' when she was dropped off by you in a recorded conversation. These conversations recorded by police contain manipulative responses from you endeavouring to discover what allegations she had made against you before saying anything about what had taken place. You used a dismissive, insulting tone of blame, wanting to discuss another child's birthday party, threatening to cut money off to her and her child to stop them both 'playing these games'.

21She said the memory of these conversations are still vivid and hurtful. She has experienced grief, mental exhaustion, anxiety and anger. The plea was late in coming and her expectation that E and she would be called to give evidence was traumatic. She speaks of the panic of the other children about your contact with them. Her sense of security has been shattered. Fear and panic are constant reactions to daily events, she has lost weight, her sleep is disturbed.  Her relationship with E has been broken. E has chosen to stay with her cousin and is said to be angry, hurt and confused and has become, in effect, a different person from what she was, beset by mood swings with little self-worth, often putting herself in dangerous situations by running away at early hours of the morning and trusting complete strangers by accepting rides with them, losing contact with members of the family for up to 24 hours.

22In the absence of a victim impact statement from E herself I rely on her mother's description of the impact upon her of your conduct. E has admitted to suicidal thoughts and panic attacks and she had recourse to a psychologist, a psychiatrist as well as school counsellors. She has been prescribed antidepressants and anti-anxiety medication. She is still 14 years old.  The sense of betrayal that your ex-partner feels cannot be overstated.  She has recited your background together as going back to when she was 12 years old.  You have the same social circle, share childhood friends and deep family connections. She is now isolated from these contacts. 

23The other children have also been significantly impacted. She now faces the prospects of raising four children on her own. Your breach of trust in this matter is nothing short than egregious and profound. Her shorter second statement made more recently also mentions the death of her father on 22 August.  She writes that your crime has fundamentally affected E and her own relationship with her and distanced them both from her father which can now never be remedied.

24E's aunt has also written a statement. She writes of the personal betrayal by you, a person she trusted and loved.  She has experienced shock and confusion, severe emotional distress. E now seems different to her as she struggles to make sense of the world. She has experienced feelings of disgust and revulsion, sadness and helplessness.  E's grandmother also wrote.  She says she felt heartbroken and is an emotional wreck. The damage done is beyond words. She writes of the impact on E, her rejection of her mother and family and her search for validation by unsafe and dangerous means.

25Another one of E's aunts wrote a statement. She is a nurse and her capacity to work has been affected. The close bond she has with E has been broken and she has seen the fracture in E's relationship with her mother, as well as her self-destructive behaviour in which E has been engaging. This aunt has had sleep and social life impacted upon significantly. 

26Finally a second cousin to E has written. E has been living with her and her family since January of this year. She confirms that E has placed herself in dangerous situations on a number of occasions, spending nights with people she did not know.  She writes of her struggle with her emotions, her fears, mood swings and anger. This is hurt and anger which this cousin shares and experiences too.  Her own lifestyle has had to change in order to deal with this new reality. She is exhausted and drained. E has disengaged from school, friends and family.  E is very angry and has refused to return to school.  She is prescribed medication for anxiety.  Her cousin writes of feeling heartbroken at the changes and the disconnection in a once fun-loving and bubbly young girl.

27Although the impact particularly on the victim is a very relevant and weighty matter, I am conscious that such impact should not swamp the sentencing process.  Although a sentence can begin to achieve in its resolution the social rehabilitative function which has been repeatedly mentioned by the courts, fundamental as it is to the recognition of the real damage and hurt which has occurred, sentencing principles must seek to synthesis many other considerations as well but I take the victim impact statements into account.

28Incest is a standard sentence offence so the standard sentencing regime under ss.5A and B of the Sentencing Act applies. Pursuant to s.50D(3) of the Crimes Act the standard sentence for the offence is 10 years.  I will say something about this in a moment.  The crime of incest under s.5D(1) carries a maximum penalty of 25 years.  

29I take your plea into account. In the context of this type of offending your plea carries valuable utilitarian aspect in that it has avoided the need for a criminal trial, its cost and associated need to expose the complainant to the giving of evidence about these events.  I accept that it is accompanied by some remorse.  Remorse is a difficult matter to assess.  It may be that these proceedings have provided you with a growing sense of the impact of your conduct.

30It was made not at an early stage of these proceedings which is unfortunate and may have been entangled and delayed by some arguments about definitions as to the relationship in the case.  This slowed down negotiations.  It may be that such a legal argument was ultimately unnecessary but it was said you never intended to have E give evidence in the matter.  However it ultimately resolved in a plea which was made and accepted.

31The weight of the plea, even delayed, is important especially at this time of pandemic where the COVID-19 situation has impacted the criminal justice system and its ability to deliver timely outcomes. It is an acceptance of your responsibility, assists in the just resolution of these matters and I take your plea into account. Your plea will reduce your sentence.

32I take into account your personal circumstances.  You come before the court as a person without a prior criminal history.  You are 33 years old.  You were placed on remand when you were arraigned in March of this year having been bailed earlier after your interview with police in September of last year.  Before your remand you lived on your own.

33Your family originates from the Cook Islands.  Your parents met and married in New Zealand.  You are the youngest of four sibling and have four half-siblings on your mother's side, all younger than you. Your family came to Melbourne.  When you were about four years old your parents separated and your mother eventually re-partnered. You moved to Tasmania with her and your half-siblings.  When you were about 11 the family moved back to Melbourne.

34You completed Year 10 at school and left halfway through Year 11. After leaving school you obtained work as an upholsterer for a while, then as a machine operator with Black Swan Foods where you worked for seven years and then another food manufacturer for another seven years. This steady and stable work history is to your credit and will be taken into account.

35Your own family life was stable and even though your mother and step-father separated when you were much older, you have limited ongoing contact with your half-siblings.  You were close to your stepfather who died some four years ago.  You have not experienced any physical domestic violence and your home life was stable.

36You told Mr Cummins, an experienced clinical and forensic psychologist, that you had a vague memory of some sexual contact between you and a female cousin when you were aged three or four and she was seven or eight but this was inconsequential.  When you were 17 you had a relationship which led to marriage in 2006.  You divorced in 2008.  In high school you had met E's mother and had been friends. In 2008 you commenced a relationship with her.

37When you met up again E was two years old, the daughter of a previous relationship which E's mother had had with one of your cousins. When that relationship floundered you commenced seeing her.  You told Mr Cummins that you never really lived together and that she would live with her mother and occasionally stay overnight with you. That description may have been based on some misunderstanding but you told Mr Cummins you did not quite know why a household was never established long-term.

38You had three children together now aged between two and seven years of age, however for all intents and purposes you viewed E as your daughter and E's mother as your partner and E treated and related and spoke to you and of you as her step-father. There have been times when you and E's mother did live together, around about the time of your first child's birth. That was for about two years.  You told Mr Cummins that you had been saving and hoping to buy a family home for a more permanent arrangement.

39Since your remand you have nothing to do with E's mother or any of the children. You had rented a property not far from where E lived with her grandmother and throughout 2018 the children and your partner lived with her during the week and spent the weekend with you. Through 2019 arguments about finances and parenting issues created tension in the relationship and from about March 2019 E's mother stopped spending time at your place on weekends, enabling however the children to spend every second weekend with you at your home.  At the time of the offence the relationship was very strained and attempts at reconciliation seem to have been unsuccessful.

40I will set out in summary form the material in relation to post-offence conduct and explanations given.  This material does not require long exposition but is relevant.  The first notable matter is the pretext call of E's mother which were recorded.  You were asked by E's mother to explain what had taken place.  You denied any knowledge.  You did so in a manipulative and aggressive fashion.  You were clearly trying to find out what had been disclosed before you said anything about it.  Your language was appalling and blaming E's mother for her failures.

41The record of interview contained some startling insights.  While making admissions as to the offending you portrayed yourself put upon by E's mother's demands, by allergies, beset by a lack of impulse control, complaining that your ex-partner had not done her duty by you physically and sexually to meet your needs, that you had no control and you were vulnerable and all you could think of was to satisfy those needs.  Later after the event telling E that you would 'Try and take most of the blame' (Question 332) including asking E, 'Why did you allow me to do this?'

42You misrepresented the call made by E's mother to the police as her not understanding your point of view and judging you.  This was reprehensible and quite clearly covering up for yourself, 'I've been busting my balls in almost every area of life, every bit of blood has been dropped out of me and I've got nothing else to give and now I hear this'. You said it was your duty to raise the boys, not the girls. If that was your intent, in this instance you have utterly failed in that example.

43You told Mr Cummins in relation to the offending that it was essentially related to dissatisfaction with intimacy with E's mother (paragraph 25).  He asked you a second time (paragraph 26). I will not repeat what you said. You acknowledged doing the wrong thing and apologised for it; however, Mr Cummins confirmed your level of insight is quite limited and your level of self-awareness at the time of the offending is also limited.  He found you not to be suffering from sexual deviance but that the offending was situationally motivated and opportunistic at a time of psychological confusion. He thought you were in the early stages in the process of coming to terms with your conduct.  He opined that your risk of reoffending was at the time of the report in August 2020 to be, at best, as average to slightly above average risk.  You did appear motivated to receive offence specific treatment.

44During the plea your counsel submitted that you had allowed feelings of affection to blur into sexual attraction in the context of a filial relationship where you often 'felt she would be by your side where her mother would not'.  It is clear your insight particular into the impact on E herself of your behaviour is still limited. In my view these matters call for caution in relation to finding as to remorse.  I repeat it may be a growing realisation and I am prepared to accept that that process has begun.  This speaks of your acceptance of responsibility.  Once the process is driven home to you as to the impact upon your victim by appropriate offence specific programs, your prospects of rehabilitation are probably good.  Until that full awareness, specific deterrence is relevant in my view and must form part of the instinctive synthesis of active factors in your sentence.

45I have looked at this post-offence conduct and explanations given by you in order to clarify that firstly, your conduct and approach after the offence must be deprecated in the strongest terms.  Secondly, that these aspects go to the facts of remorse, acceptance of responsibility, prospects of rehabilitation, assessment, the need for specific deterrence. That you committed this vile offence against your daughter is only aggravated slightly by your mindset at the time and thereafter.  This state of mind is troubling, as revealed in the pretext call and the record of interview.  Your explanations and rationalisation leave the listener frankly flabbergasted by your answers.

46They reveal that the offence is aggravated in the sense that you at the time of the offence, out of this mindset, placed the child in a false position of acceptance and control where in fact you were manipulating your urges and your situation for your own gratification. You felt unable to control those urges and placed responsibility on her to satisfy them out of a situation which she knew you to be in in relation to your partner and exploited her vulnerability, her affection for you, so that she was not only your physical victim but a victim of your sordid desires.

47These are plainly humiliating circumstances and are an aggravation, in my view.  The breach of trust involved in this conduct is the greater aggravation, not just the trust reposed on you by E as a child but by her mother and indeed all the family members. E was entitled to be protected, kept safe and cherished from all harm by you. You shattered that expectation.

48I turn to the objective gravity of the offence.  I must sentence you for one charge, which was rolled up, rolling up a digital and penile penetration of E's vagina, penetrations which reasonably are viewed as having taken place as part of one transaction in the same place in effect as the one occasion in close temporal proximity.  This distinguishes many of the cases of incest which are able to be reviewed which concern usually multiple acts in different times and places, different acts and multiple complainants times. 

49The circumstances here therefore tend towards greater concurrency than those cases if they have been separately charged. This of itself reduces the objective gravity of your offending. Your conduct was not accompanied by physically humiliating acts beyond the very serious allegations to which you have pleaded.  Your offending was not protracted or systematic; however, I view your use of toothpaste if not a humiliating act at least highly embarrassing.

50Your actions were not proceeded by grooming for purposes of facilitating its commission and was not accompanied by extraneous violence. It was protected by the use of a condom.  However, on the other hand it is well established that incest is not only an offence involving an egregious breach of trust but it is an inherently violent offence which, as in this case, involved the effective subjugation of the young and vulnerable.  It was committed against a young girl who did not have the wherewithal to deal with your abuse.

51I consider the offending as very serious and that your moral culpability is high.  The protection of children from harm that comes from premature sexual activity calls for just punishment where that protection is infringed.  General deterrence is paramount to emphasise the prohibition which is founded on a solid presumption that premature sexual activity will cause long-term physical and psychological harm unaffected by the presence of apparent consent, which in this case in my view was vitiated in any event by your conduct.

52It is the adult's responsibility, particularly a father's responsibility, to avoid such harm.  Incest violates the personal dignity and the body integrity of the child and is of its very nature abhorrent and depraved.  It strikes at a fundamental value of the community which it places on the protection and well-being of its young.  It violates, as has been often stated, basic norms of civilised behaviour and it erodes decency of family life.  You told E not to tell her mother about what you had done at least twice.  This attempt to conceal and intimidate her is indicative of the seriousness of your offence and of your culpability.

53I have undertaken the task of assessing the objective gravity of the offending without using categorisations or recourse to range estimates.  During the plea the defence referred to DPP v Weybury [2018] VSCA 120. I have endeavoured to determine objective seriousness by looking at many incest cases apart from the particular circumstances of the offending. Many cases are not relatively comparable, but both the maximum penalty as well as the number of cases are useful yardsticks both as to objective seriousness and as to sentence.

54Another guidepost is the standard sentence regime under which this offence falls by way of ss.5A and B of the Sentencing Act.  As I have stated, the standard sentence for this offence is 10 years. The scheme became effective on February 2018. Under this scheme, according to the authority R v Brown [2019] VSCA 286 as well as Lugo v The Queen [2020] VSCA 75, I have endeavoured to assess the seriousness of the offence in the usual way in which courts have done. The penalty is a legislative guidepost which I take into account as a relevant sentencing factor.

55I have input this factor into the instinctive synthesis of relevant factors.  I have considered a large number of cases, as I have said, to confirm the applicable principles established by those cases for sentencing purposes.  Falling as it does under the standard scheme, the consideration of current sentencing practices, another relevant factor is limited to sentences imposed under the standard scheme. There are currently very few if any comparable cases to establish such a practice. 

56I have determined the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence by reference to the nature of the offending without reference to matters personal to you, as is required by s.5A(3)(a) and (b). In my view, because of these factors which I have outlined, the sentence will be shorter than the standard sentence I have mentioned. As a result the appropriate non-parole period will be fixed by reference to that head sentence, because in relative terms, although serious, the matters I have discussed qualify your offending as not requiring the appropriate sentence to be of that length, taking into account the mitigating factors I have mentioned.

57I have noted DPP v Rohan [2020] VCC 814, DPP v Purcell [2020] VCC 757, DPP v Shearer (a pseudonym) [2019] VSCA 47, Carter (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2018] VSCA 88, DPP v Tewksbury (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 38, Grantley (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2018] VSCA 88, Crawford (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2018] VSCA 113, DPP v Walsh (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 172, Harlow (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2018] VSCA 234, DPP v Wilson (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 263, Phillips v The Queen [2018] VSCA 114, relevantly DPP v Jarvis [2019] VCC 1943, DPP v Polat (a pseudonym) [2020] VSCA 174 and DPP v Boxer (a pseudonym) [2020] VCC 1209.

58Most of these cases, though very few are subject to the standard sentencing scheme, relate to different circumstances than what pertains here and can provide little guidance, in my view, except as to general sentencing principles, with the exception perhaps of Jarvis.  As I have said, there is no current sentencing principles in effect yet developed and I note in passing the recent history of sentences in this spectrum of incest after the Dalgliesh decision.

59I take into account that you have been in prison before this remand.  You are and will be imprisoned at a difficult time, given the current and ongoing pandemic.  This circumstance has restricted further time in reclusion and may well affect your ability to receive visits, to access work, to participate in programs and services otherwise available and to possibly restrict your movements within the prison for long periods of time, coupled with the reality of the possibility of infection and the anxiety as to the situation with those outside the prison about whom you may be concerned.  I take this factor into account.

60This offence is a category 1 offence pursuant to s.5(2G) of the Sentencing Act 1991. This classification means a term of imprisonment must be imposed and I intend to do so.

61I take into account your previous good character and the support that you have from your mother and your siblings. I received references from a number of people and I take those into account.  Your older brother wrote of your work ethic and your distress at not seeing your own children. He says you are deeply sorry. Your mother wrote of the strong bond in your family and of the family support for you. 

62Roger Brumley[3] has known you since the offences and speaks of your sorrow at the impact on your family, acceptable of responsibility and helpful and generous advice.  Mark Nguyen[4] wrote of working together with you, your upset and what you had done and your hard-working and trustworthy reputation.  Paul Liew[5], a youth worker, wrote of your volunteering at the Church of Christ, of your remorse, resilience and service that you have rendered in that ministry for others.

[3] A pseudonym

[4] A pseudonym

[5] A pseudonym

63Meredith Rock is a family therapist and educator. You were referred to her, in September 2019 by a local pastor, seeking counselling. She writes that you presented as sorrowful during the time that she saw you till the time of the March 2020 remand.  She saw you two to four times per week and in that time you expressed shame and remorse. She writes you have been honestly and willingly accepting responsibility and attempting to understand the motives for your behaviour.  She writes that you have great potential and will address your behavioural and emotional issues.

64Before your bail was revoked I was told you sought out your father in order to endeavour to repair that relationship, as well as relationships with other family members. 

65By virtue of your plea to the charge you will be registered as a sex offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act, s.7 of that Act. A registrable offence is a class 1 offence, which is the case here, and the period for registration is life. This consequence upon your sentence will impose significant and ongoing obligations upon you, particularly in relation to contact with children as well as other matters when you are released from custody. The paperwork will outline these obligations.

66I have calculated your period of pre-sentence detention as 183 days excluding today.  Is that agreeable?

67MS BOLTON:  I had 184.  Yes, 184 not including today.  That's my understanding, Your Honour.

68HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.

69MS BOLTON:  Thank you.

70MR TERRY:  That's right.

71HIS HONOUR:  You have been on remand for 183 days excluding today and I declare that you have served those days by way of pre-sentence detention.  That will be taken into account as going to your sentence and I will have that number noted in the records of the court.  But for your plea I would have sentenced you to seven and a half years with a non-parole period of five years.  On the charge of incest you are convicted and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.  I order a non-parole period of four years.

72Was there a biological sample under s.464ZF sought or any other ancillary orders, Ms Bolton?

73MS BOLTON:  No, there's no other ancillary orders sought, Your Honour.

74HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.  All right.  Well, there's nothing else then in relation to the sentence.  Thank you both for your assistance.

75MR TERRY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

76HIS HONOUR:  Sine die.

‑ ‑ ‑