Director of Public Prosecutions v Murray (a pseudonym)
[2020] VCC 958
•29 June 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ROGER MURRAY (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE HIGHAM |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 21 April 2020 and 22 June 2020 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 29 June 2020 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Murray (a pseudonym) |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 958 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant – incest – indecent act with a child under the age of 16 – production of child pornography – possession of a drug of dependence – possession of child abuse material – plea of guilty
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic)
Cases Cited: DPP v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 148
DPP v G [2002] VSCA 6
Sentence:Total Effective Sentence of 16 years and 5 months, with a non-parole period of 12 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions For the Accused | Ms S. Holmes Mr H. Rattray | Office of Public Prosecutions Criminal Lawyers Victoria |
HIS HONOUR:
1Roger Murray[1], you have pleaded guilty to the following charges on Indictment K10531710A (‘Indictment A’): three charges of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendent (Charges 1 to 3); three charges of incest (Charges 4, 5 and 7); one charge of indecent act with a child under the age of 16 (Charge 6); and five charges of production of child pornography (Charges 8 to 12).
[1] A pseudonym.
2The victim in all 12 charges was your biological daughter, Rachel[2], born in September 2012, and who was between the ages of two and six at the time of your offending against her.
[2] A pseudonym.
3The maximum penalty for each of Charges 1 to 5 and Charge 7 is a term of imprisonment of 25 years. Each of the Charges 1 to 3 are standard sentence offences, for which the standard sentence is a term of imprisonment of 10 years. The maximum penalty for each of Charge 6 and Charges 8 to 12 was a term of imprisonment of 10 years.
4You have also pleaded guilty to the following charge on Indictment K10531710B (‘Indictment B’): one charge of possession of a drug of dependence (Charge 1), for which the maximum penalty is five penalty units, and one charge of possession of child abuse material (Charge 2), for which the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment of 10 years.
5Tendered on the Plea as Exhibit 1 was an Agreed Summary of Prosecution Opening, which set out the full circumstances of your offending. In brief, the circumstances of your offending were as follows.
6On Monday 25 February 2019, Rachel was at school when she disclosed the offending in Charge 1 to 3 of Indictment A, as part of a writing exercise, in the following terms; “On the weekend, dad did something special to me on the bed”. The dedicated and very alert supply teacher asked Rachel if mum was present at that time. When told that mum was not present, Rachel’s form teacher was alerted and, in due course, police arrived at the school.
7When questioned further, Rachel told police that, “Dad does special things to me”, and, “I can't say, it's a secret”. The special things happened on her Dad's bed and she then drew a picture. Rachel also said that Dad used tools in her butt, with a pink one used in her butt (Charge 2 of Indictment A) and a purple one that vibrates used in her vagina (Charge 1 of Indictment A).
8Later, Rachel told police in her Video Audio Recorded Evidence (VARE) statement that you had made her perform oral sex on you. She referred to your “doodle” as being tough and stiff and that it had piercings and that she did not like “the silver things on my lips” (Charge 3 of Indictment A). 'Doodle' is, of course, Rachel’s reference to your penis. Rachel also described that these events had been taking place every Saturday and Sunday since she was 18 months old.
9A search warrant was executed at your family home in Yarram on 27 February 2019, and various items, including sex toys, computers, and USBs, were photographed and seized. Amongst the items seized from the garage were two small containers with cannabis inside (Charge 1 on Indictment B) and two CDs and a USB stick, containing, in total, 75 images depicting child abuse material between categories 1 and 4 (Charge 2 on Indictment B).
10On 28 February 2019, Rachel was examined at Monash Children's Hospital. The examination did not reveal any physical signs of trauma to the genital, anal or perianal regions. However, Rachel displayed behaviours consistent with a reactive attachment disorder, indicating the absence of a safe and secure environment at home.
11You were arrested and interviewed on 27 February 2019. In that Record of Interview (ROI) you denied, as was your right, ever sexually assaulting the complainant. Following your remand in custody, your partner Denise Robinson[3] (Rachel’s mother) located a USB in the shed at the family home and handed it to police. Upon analysis, the USB was found to contain various documents relating to your personal and professional life, and a folder containing six images of Rachel being sexually penetrated by fingers or by a penis.
[3] A pseudonym.
12The images were created on 8 December 2014, when Rachel, your daughter and victim was then aged two years, two months and 13 days. The images depict a gloved finger penetrating Rachel’s anus (Charges 4 and 6), a gloved index and middle finger penetrating her anus (Charges 5 and 9), your penis fitted with a condom pressing against the bare skin of your daughter (Charges 6 and 10) your erect penis penetrating your daughter’s anus (Charges 7 and 11), and Rachel in a pyjama top with her legs spread apart, wearing no pants and with her anus displayed (Charge 12).
13You were further interviewed on 14 May 2019, after that USB had been analysed, during which you made no comment to the allegations. You further stated that the USB shown to you was Denise’s and that you did not know who could be responsible for taking the photographs of your daughter.
14On 6 August 2019, the matter was committed to this Court. On 11 October 2019, there was a Special Hearing at which your daughter gave evidence and was cross-examined by learned Counsel on your behalf. Also on that day, at the request of your Counsel, the images from the USB were viewed in a Closed Court, with only defence and prosecution Counsel present, along with the informant and myself.
15At a Case Management Conference on 5 February 2020, you indicated your intention to plead guilty to Charges 1 to 3, but not guilty to Charges 4 to 12, on Indictment A. On 7 February 2020, you pleaded guilty to all charges. You have been in custody since your arrest on 27 February 2019.
16Tendered on the Plea as Exhibit 2 was a Victim Impact Statement from Denise Robinson, your victim's mother, and your former partner. She details in that statement that Rachel is exhibiting sexualised behaviours and has been diagnosed with ADHD, believed to be directly linked to your offending against her.
17Rachel calls out in her sleep for dad to stop it. Ms Robinson writes of her own guilt for not knowing that the abuse was going on whilst she was at work. She writes,
“I have nightmares and flashbacks due to coming across the disgusting nature of the photos that he took of our daughter, that he had on a USB. It deeply upsets me that he was using our beautiful daughter for his pleasure.”
18Her youngest child, your son, has also been impacted by the stress and the rupture of his familial life. Ms Robinson has had to move home to get away from the associations that her former home carries for her. She has not wanted to leave the house, concerned about being judged by the public because she did not know that your abuse of your daughter was happening, and she fears that people think that she was somehow complicit in your crimes.
19She concludes,
“This has had a double effect to myself because I suffered as a child with being sexually abused and thought I would be able to protect my children from the same fate that I was dealt as a child. This has brought back flashbacks and nightmares for myself which makes things mentally difficult at times.”
20Whilst such statements must not be allowed to overwhelm the sentencing process, there can be no doubt as to the devastating and traumatic impact of your offending upon your victims.
21I turn now to your personal circumstances.
22You were born in February 1969 and you are now 51 years of age. You were aged 45 to 50 at the time of this offending. You have no prior or pending criminal matters. You were raised in Dandenong and both your parents are still alive. You have one younger sister, you completed high school in Year 9 and after leaving the school you joined the workforce. You have enjoyed continuous employment on farms, working for local shires, and, for the 11 years prior to your arrest, you owned a small business in Yarram.
23You report having been the victim of a serious sexual assault when you were aged 13. The matter was not reported to police and no supporting evidence was presented on your Plea.
24You have been married to your wife Jacqui for 30 years. You have three adult children, two boys and a girl, from that relationship.
25You met Diane Robinson when she worked for you at your small business. You began a relationship, and your daughter Rachel was born whilst you were still living with your wife and children. You moved in with Denise and Rachel in 2015, when Rachel was three years of age. In November 2017, after the birth of your youngest child William[4], the family moved to another location. Denise worked most weekends, leaving you to look after the children. It was on the last weekend in February 2019 that the offending in Charges 1 to 3 took place.
[4] A pseudonym.
26Exhibit 5 on the Plea was a Court Ordered Report prepared by Dr Bonnie Albrecht, senior forensic psychologist at Forensicare, dated 10 June 2020. Dr Albrecht recorded your personal history and noted that you seemed to be adapting relatively well to the prison environment, maintaining regular contact with your parents and with your wife. In her view, you have a passive interpersonal style and are wholly unable to articulate your own sexual interests or needs. In simple terms Mr Murray, that means things happen to you including intimate relations and acts rather than you making things happen. Further, you have an avoidant coping style. Dr Albrecht states,
“By focussing on the facts, of black and white thinking, he protects himself from emotional burden including the emotional consequences of his actions, such as infidelity or offending. You did not present with anti-social attitudes and there was no evidence supportive of a diagnosis of personality disorder”.
27You told Dr Albrecht that you had been the victim of sexual assault (see [23]), but
Mr Rattray, on your Plea, did not argue any connection between this self-report of sexual assault and the offending. You described the absence of contact with Denise, your former partner, and your children, including the victim, as a “huge burden”.28Dr Albrecht assessed you as a moderate risk of future sexual offending. She conducted a clinical interview and collateral information provided no evidence of an interest in children, nor evidence of cognitive distortions common in child sex offenders. However, Dr Albrecht did concede that the offence details do suggest a longstanding sexual interest in minor females, in addition to an adult sexual interest.
29Significantly. you denied the offending. You repeatedly stated you had no recollection of the offending behaviour, you could not explain why the accusations had been made, nor could you explain how child exploitation material depicting your daughter had been made beyond hypothesising as to the role played by some third party.
30You stated it was not possible that you had offended against your daughter as you love her. Notwithstanding your denial of the offences, you were open to treatment. Dr Albrecht states that post-offence denial is commonly understood to be an attempt by offenders to protect their self-concept against the shame or guilt possibly felt about their offending behaviour. In other words, it is a means for you to protect yourself from the consequences of and responsibility for your actions. She noted that denial of the offending is more closely related to treatment responsivity issues than to risk.
31It is, however, clear that your denials prevented firm conclusions being drawn by Dr Albrecht as to your sexual-psycho personality. The Court therefore views her report with some caution. Your denials do not aggravate your offending and you are not to be punished for them, but they do impact my assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation and of your remorse.
32I turn now to the submissions of counsel. Ms Holmes, learned Counsel on behalf of the Director, submitted briefly that general and specific deterrence, denunciation, protection of the community and just punishment are all relevant sentencing purposes in your case. The objective gravity of the offending called for a significant and substantial term of imprisonment with a non-parole period.
33In assessing the gravity of the offending, she pointed to the gross breach of trust and of parental duty, the repeated nature of the offending, the perverted and depraved nature of the offending, the extremely young age of your victim, and the affect that your offending has had both on your daughter and on her mother, your former partner. I note that, as to the extremely young age of your victim, no case was able to be found either by me or by learned Counsel where a child of such tender years had been subjected to such penetrative acts.
34Ms Holmes submitted that your offending on both sets of penetrative charges fell in the upper range of seriousness for offending of this kind and I agree with that submission. She reminded me this was not isolated offending, and whilst she rightly conceded that your plea entitled you to some discount, she urged caution in assessing the utilitarian value of your plea, noting it was entered after your victim had given evidence.
35She further submitted that there was no evidence of your remorse. She accepted that any sentence should regard the production of child pornography (Charges 8 to 12) as aggravating features of Charges 4, 5 and 7, and that there should be no cumulation. That was a most fair concession, and it is one to which I will accede. She reminded me of the serious offender provisions. She did not seek on behalf of the Director, a disproportionate sentence. She submitted there should be some cumulation between the separate penetrations and the separate occasions of offending, subject to the overarching principle of totality.
36Your Counsel, Mr Rattray, in his submissions on your behalf conceded that your offending was very serious, with the only appropriate disposition being a significant term of imprisonment with a non-parole period to be fixed. Having regard to the serious offender provisions, he submitted that a disproportionate sentence was not necessary in all the circumstances of your case, to protect the community from you. I could not be satisfied that you would remain a danger to the community, beyond the period of imprisonment that totality would permit.
37In mitigation of any such sentence, he relied upon firstly, and primarily, the utilitarian value of your plea, which he submitted should bring with it a suitable and commensurate discount. He submitted that on Charges 4 to 12, your victim's mother was spared embarrassing and traumatic cross-examination, noting that she had herself been the victim of sexual abuse as a child.
38As I understood Mr Rattray, it had been contemplated that the trial on Charges 4 to 12 would have been run on the basis that someone else was guilty, and the fact of earlier intrafamilial abuse would have been the foundation for such an argument. In addition, there would have been a forensic challenge to the interrogation of the USB stick on which you stored images of your violation of your own daughter. The abandonment of such forensic opportunities, with all the intended delay that they would have attracted, demonstrated the utility and value to be afforded to your plea, which should bring significant benefit to you.
39Mr Rattray conceded that there was a strong Prosecution case. Mr Rattray conceded that the discount to be afforded to you for your plea is a matter for the Judge. He rightly cautioned against double punishment, the penetrative acts of Charges 4, 5 and 7 were also captured by Charges 8 to 12. The photographing was an aggravating feature of the penetration and, accordingly, care should be taken when imposing a sentence for the production of child pornography charges (Charges 8 to 12).
40Mr Rattray conceded that the penetrative acts represented in Charges 4, 5 and 7 were in the upper range of gravity for offences of this kind. Upon enquiry, he could not provide a case in Victoria where a child of such of tender years was a victim of such penetrative acts (see [33]). However, he did not make such a concession in relation to Charges 1, 2 and 3.
41He submitted your plea was evidence of your remorse. I invited further submissions in view of the report from Dr Albrecht, which detailed your denial of the offending and wherein you indicated you had pleaded guilty to reduce the impact on your parents and your lack of financial capacity to fight the charges.
42Mr Murray, remorse is understood in these Courts as a genuine regret for the offending and as a willingness to atone for it. Your lack of insight, your late plea, the apparent denial of that to which you have pleaded guilty, your conduct and your requiring your victim to give evidence all, in my view, tend against a finding of remorse.
43Mr Rattray submitted you had the support of your parents and good prospects of rehabilitation. On the further Plea, he qualified that submission. Your prospects of rehabilitation are an unknown in my view, and therefore must be viewed as guarded, at best.
44He reminded me of the current restrictions within the custodial setting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are no facilities for visitors and there are more restricted times when telephone calls can be made. Thus, generally there is a more restrictive regime than before, although Mr Rattray did not provide me with details. He urged the importance, in your case, of the principle of totality and he noticed that the standard sentence provisions did not apply to the most serious offences.
45Mr Murray, you have pleaded guilty to a most serious offending as is made clear by the maximum penalties imposed by Parliament for the crime that you have committed. Sexual offending against children will always be viewed as a most serious offending by the courts. There has been a growing recognition of the lasting impact that such offending has upon children and how it can often lead to lives that are not fully lived. Your daughter exhibited concerning behaviour when examined by Dr Garde, and those behaviours are continuing. There is no doubt she has been impacted by your actions.
46Children who have been sexually offended against have had their innocence, their childhood and their sense of self stolen from them. They can blame themselves for acts committed against them by adults and for which they are completely without blame. They struggle to engage in healthy relationships. They struggle to find their place in the world. Crimes against children are, quite simply, crimes against our common future and our common humanity. The courts have repeatedly stated that they will do everything within their power to protect children.
47As for the offence of incest (Charges 4, 5 and 7), in 2002 in the case of the DPP v G, President Winneke observed that;
“This Court has in recent years had cause to remark upon the prevalence of the crime of incest in the community, with the capacity to erode decency of family life and the trust and confidence of its young victims. It is a crime which obliges the Court to punish it with principles of general deterrence, denunciation and protection of young persons at the forefront of the sentencing purposes. The insidious effects of the crime of incest upon its victims should be recognised by those who are privileged to exercise parental care, and the community is entitled to expect that those who exercise such care will not abuse the trust and confident reposed in them by those in their charge. Parents who fail to exercise the restraint which the community expects of them, and who give in to their own sexual gratification, must expect to be severely and appropriately punished.”[5]
[5] DPP v G [2002] VSCA 6, [9] – [10].
48In Dalgliesh No.1, the Court observed that,
“Incest is a crime of violence and must be so regarded. General and specific deterrence and denunciation must be given their proper emphasis. The long-term harm done to the victim, now better understood, must be given due weight in the sentencing calculus. Sentences must be commensurate with the seriousness of the breach of parental responsibility involved.”[6]
[6] DPP v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 148, [129].
49The objective gravity of the offending lies in;
“…the nature and extent of the offending conduct, its frequency and duration, and the circumstances in which it occurs, each of which can increase the object gravity of the offending, the culpability of the offender and the damage to the victim and to the victim's family.”[7]
[7] Ibid, [73].
50Mr Murray, the simple facts of your offending bespeak their gravity. When your daughter was but two years of age, at a time in a child's life which should be filled with wonder as they explore the world and their place in it, the intimate spaces of her body were violated by you. You penetrated her anus with your fingers and with your erect penis. Prior to the penetration, you had placed a glove on your hand and a condom on your penis, bespeaking that the violation was planned and it was premeditated. The acts of penetration were not momentary, although I can make no finding as to how protracted in time they were.
51Your violation of your daughter did not stop there, for you photographed the acts and kept the files on a USB. It is clear from your state of arousal that you were deriving sexual satisfaction from the de-spoliation of your own daughter. On a weekend in late February 2019, when your daughter was aged six, you again violated her, penetrating both her anus and her vagina with sex toys. That was not the end of her degradation on that occasion, for you then made her perform oral sex upon you.
52In her VARE, Rachel stated that the offending had been occurring every Saturday and Sunday since she was 18 months old. You do not fall to be sentenced for these other instances of sexual misconduct, nor do they constitute an aggravating feature of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty. Nonetheless, they provide the context of the offending. These were not isolated incidences. You had ample opportunity to reflect upon and to consider your wrongdoing, but you chose to offend again.
53You offended against your daughter in her own home, where she had the right to be safe. You told her it was a secret and that she was not allowed to tell. By doing so, you normalised for her that which should have been grotesquely abnormal. A child of such tender years looks to their parent for protection, for guidance, for care and for love. You responded to your child's dependence by reducing her to the status of a mere object, whose purpose was to satisfy your depraved and corrupting desire. You betrayed the trust placed in you by your child and by your partner.
54Your offending constitutes a fundamental betrayal of parental authority, and it represents a fundamental betrayal of all recognised values of family, of decency and, as I have said, of common humanity. The objective gravity of your offending is grave indeed and your moral culpability for it is of the highest order. You have demonstrated little, if any, remorse for your offending.
55Mr Murray, the sentencing process is not about revenge, it is not about retribution, and it cannot give back to your victim and her family that which they believed they have lost. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of different factors. I must consider the need to protect the community from you. I must give effect to principles of both general and specific deterrence, meaning I must deter others from behaving as you did, and I must deter you from the repeat of such behaviour. I must express the community's denunciation of your conduct. I must take into account the effect that your crime has had upon your victim, and I must have regard to both current sentencing practices and to the maximum penalties imposed by Parliament for the kind of offence that you have committed. I should also promote, if possible, your rehabilitation.
56In short, I must try to balance your personal circumstances with the circumstances of your offending. It is a duty of the Court to impose no longer sentence than is necessary in all of the circumstances of the case.
57Finally, in addition to the matters I am required to take into account under s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I must also take into account that Charges 1 to 3 are standard sentence offences, subject to the standard sentencing provisions as set out in ss 5A and 5B of the Sentencing Act. The standard sentence for each charge of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendent is 10 years' imprisonment.[8]
[8] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 50C(1).
58The standard sentence indicates the sentence for an offence which is in the mid-range of seriousness, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence. The maximum sentence and the standard sentence are both to be taken into account as guideposts in the sentencing process.
59The provisions do not require the standard sentence to be imposed, nor should it be used as a starting point. It is but one of the factors to be considered, along with all the other factors under s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991 relevant to imposing a sentence, which is just and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
60So far as consideration of current sentencing practices are concerned, sentences imposed prior to the introduction of the standard sentence regime may be relied upon for general statements of principle. However, s 5B(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act 1991 requires a Court to only have regard to sentences previously imposed for the offence, as a standard sentence offence.
61Incest has been rightly described as an appalling crime. Clearly, protection of the community, general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing considerations in this case.
62On Charges 3 to 12, I am required to sentence you as a serious sexual offender and, ordinarily, that means that I would be required to impose a sentence cumulative to the other sentences. The Prosecution has not sought to persuade me that I should impose a disproportionate sentence, and I do not propose to do so. It seems to me that justice can be done in this matter and the public can be adequately protected by a measure of concurrency that I think adequately deals with all of the sentencing considerations. Having regard to the principle of totality, I have moderated the orders for cumulation I would otherwise have made.
63I give such weight as I can to the mitigatory factors to which I have been referred. I have regard to your plea of guilty, which brings with it the benefit of saving the community the time, cost, and trauma of a trial. It was, however, a plea that was entered late and entered after the victim of your crimes, your own daughter, had been cross-examined by Counsel on your behalf. It was, in addition, a plea entered in the face of a strong, if not an overwhelming, Prosecution case. Nonetheless, I will give your plea commensurate weight.
64I have regard to your assessed moderate risk of re-offending. I have regard to the current uncertainties attending the custodial setting at a time of the COVID-19 pandemic. I have regard to the overarching sentencing principle of totality.
65Nonetheless, as you must be only too well aware, your offending is such that it can only be met by a substantial and significant term of imprisonment. Having identified and considered the relevant factors in assessing the appropriate sentence, I have formed the view that the sentences I will impose on Charges 1 to 3 are greater than the standard sentence. As indicated though, I have moderated the orders I would otherwise have made for concurrency.
66Now, Mr Murray, you are sentenced as follows.
67On Indictment K10531710A:
(a) On Charge 1, sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendent, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years.
(b) On Charge 2, sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant, you are sentence to a term of imprisonment of 12 years.
(c) On Charge 3, sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant, you are sentencing to a term of imprisonment of 12 years.
(d) On Charge 4, incest, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years and two months.
(e) On Charge 5, incest, you are sentencing to a term of imprisonment of 12 years and four months.
(f) On Charge 6, indecent act with a child under the age of 16, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and nine months.
(g) On Charge 7, incest, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years and nine months.
(h) On Charge 8, production of child pornography, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 27 months.
(i) On Charge 9, production of child pornography, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 24 months.
(j) On Charge 10, production of child pornography, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months.
(k) On Charge 11, production of child pornography, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and six months.
(l) And Charge 12, production of child pornography, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 21 months.
68On Indictment K10531710B:
(a) On Charge 1, possessing a drug of a dependence, you were convicted and discharged.
(b) On Charge 2, possession of child abuse material, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight months.
69I order that seven months of the sentence on Charge 1 on indictment A, seven months of the sentence on Charge 2 on indictment A, 20 months of the sentence on Charge 3 on indictment A, four months of the sentence on Charge 4 on indictment A, four months of the sentence on Charge 5 on indictment A, and two months of the sentence on Charge 2 on indictment B run cumulative to each other and cumulative to the sentence on Charge 7 on indictment A. That makes a Total Effective Sentence (TES) of 16 years and 5 months.
70I fix a non-parole period of 12 years.
71Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had you not pleaded guilty you would have been sentenced to a TES of 19 years and eight months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years and six months.
72Pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act1991, I declare that you have served 488 days of the sentence that I have passed upon you by way of pre-sentence detention, and I direct that this be entered into the Records of the Court.
73Pursuant to s 34 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act2004, you are now a registerable offender, subject to the provisions of that Act. You must comply with the reporting obligations under Part 3 of the Act for the rest of your life.
2
0