Director of Public Prosecutions v Murray-MacGregor
[2023] VCC 719
•22 May 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 19-02472
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| WENDY MURRAY-MacGREGOR |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR THE CHIEF JUDGE (JUDGE KIDD) |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 5 May 2023 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 22 May 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Murray-MacGregor |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 719 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal law – sentence
Catchwords: Sentence – armed robbery – long arm firearms – Sports Club
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:Verdins v The Queen (2007) 16 VR 269; Guden v The Queen [2010] VSCA 196; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; DPP v Hermann [2021] VSCA 160; Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; Da Costa v The Queen [2016] VSCA 49
Sentence: 3 years 4 months imprisonment; 15 months non-parole period
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms V. Gillis | Director of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr S. Kenny | Ms C. Morris Stary Norton Halphen |
HIS HONOUR:
1Wendy Murray-MacGregor, you are now 43 years old. You were 38 years old at the time of committing this offending.
2You have pleaded guilty to one charge of armed robbery under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.
Procedural History
3You were represented on your plea hearing by Mr Kenny, who adopted, with some qualification, the submissions made by Mr Goodfellow on your behalf at your sentence indication hearing. Unless I need to distinguish between the two submissions, I will simply refer to them collectively as submissions made by your counsel.
Circumstances of the Offending
4The circumstances of your offending are contained in the prosecution opening, which was exhibited on your plea.[1] I act upon the facts as outlined in the opening, and which were not disputed by you. I will briefly summarise those facts.
[1] Exhibit P1: summary of prosecution opening for plea dated 17 July 2022.
5The location of your offending was the St Albans Sports Club on Gillespie Road in King Park ('the Club'). The Club is a licensed gaming venue.
6You were employed at the Club between approximately September 2012 and October 2014 and had knowledge about its operations.
7At approximately 8 o'clock on the morning of 11 November 2018, you drove to the house of an associate of yours – Daniel Scott[2] – and collected him. You then drove back towards your house where you remained. Your vehicle was then driven to a location which was approximately 50 metres south of the Club.
[2] A pseudonym.
8The Club was still closed, and the doors were locked. The manager and the cleaner were inside the Club.
9Daniel Scott and an unknown co-offender ran to the Club and forced open the locked front doors. Daniel Scott carried a longarm firearm or imitation firearm and a dark-coloured bag. The unknown co-offender was also carrying a longarm firearm. Both individuals were dressed in dark-coloured clothing with varying degrees of unsophisticated disguises.
10Daniel Scott and the unknown co-offender entered the Club. The cleaner screamed and ran away. Scott jumped the front bar. The unknown co-offender walked around the front bar to the bistro area where the cleaner was working. Scott dropped the bag on the floor and walked towards the cleaner carrying the firearm. Scott and the unknown co-offender walked towards the cash safes before returning to the bistro bar, smashing the cash registers and stealing a total of $5,000 in cash.
11Scott and the unknown co-offender then fled on foot to your vehicle. Your vehicle was then driven back towards your house. The club manager called Triple 0.
12You have pleaded guilty upon the basis that you were involved in the commission of this armed robbery in the following ways:
·You knowingly allowed your vehicle to be used by Scott in committing the offence;
·You were involved in planning and advising Scott on aspects of the armed robbery committed at the Club. Having previously worked at the Club, you had knowledge of the business;
·You also shared in the financial proceeds of the offence.
Victim Impact
13No victim impact statements were tendered.
14Counsel for the prosecution, Ms Hotchkin, referred to police statements in which the manager reported feeling 'scared and a bit anxious' and 'frightened and in shock' and the cleaner reported feeling 'sick', 'scared' and fearing 'for [her] safety'. This episode would have been terrifying. This experience must have had an impact upon them.
Objective Gravity of the Offending and Your Role
15Armed robbery is a serious crime. On the spectrum of armed robberies, this is a serious armed robbery. It clearly sits above a street-level type armed robbery, or low to mid-range examples of this offence. It involved:
·A degree of planning;
·Targeted selection of a commercial institution with a potential for a large reward;
·Forced entry;
·The use and brandishing of longarm firearms / imitation firearms (longarm);
·Direct confrontation with staff; and
·Not insignificant reward.
16As to the information you provided to Scott, the agreed facts state that the location was selected by reason of your previous association as an employee. The opening notes that you knew the location of the cash safes and you knew there would be few staff on duty on a Sunday morning. There is some breach of trust here as a former employee. I accept, however, your counsel's submission that this assessment requires a sense of proportion. This is not a situation of an employee disclosing specialised, sensitive or confidential information entrusted to them, and which might have facilitated ease of entry or safe access. By contrast, the assistance you gave was relatively general and unsophisticated.
17I accept you played a secondary role in this armed robbery. You were not an active participant in the actual armed robbery itself. You were also not the mastermind. I make allowance for the fact that your involvement in this crime finds some explanation in your association with 'antisocial peers' who had some influence over you. It is within this context that your role in the offending must be assessed. So much has been accepted by the prosecution.
18That all said, there is no escaping the conclusion that your role was more than minor or peripheral. You were very much a willing contributor to this criminal escapade, and you meaningfully assisted its commission in several ways. It was executed with some planning, of which you were very much a part. Your level of assistance is demonstrated by the fact that you shared in the proceeds. Your role was of some importance.
19It became apparent at the plea hearing that the parties agree that:
·The case against you is not put upon the basis that you knew of the involvement of a second male co-offender prior to the commission of the armed robbery;
·However, you did at some point afterwards learn of the participation of a second offender. This is demonstrated by an admission made by you to your ex-partner, Elijah Morse[3], in January 2019 which was captured on a listening device. This admission forms part of the agreed prosecution opening.
[3] A pseudonym.
20I take that into account when assessing your role and moral culpability. Even making allowance for that, you still knowingly assisted in a serious instance of armed robbery.
No Criminal Record
21You have no prior convictions.
Personal Circumstances
22Your personal circumstances were set out in the psychological report of Dr Aaron Cunningham.[4] That was tendered at the plea, and I should add that I will be adding some footnotes in, or there are some footnotes to some of these references which I will not read out today.
[4] Exhibit D1: psychological report written by Dr Aaron Cunningham dated 14 February 2023 in relation to Ms Murray-MacGregor.
23You were born in 1980. You grew up in New Zealand and are of Māori heritage.
24Your family was transient. You were placed in foster care when you were nine months old. You spent your formative years in older-style orphanages. You were a ward of the State until your father gained custody of you when you were five years old. He was one of 13 children from a violent alcoholic family. Your father was physically abusive. [Redacted]. You attended 11 different primary schools. You left school and home at the age of 15.
25Your first significant relationship lasted 11 years. You had three children together. You lived in a caravan together before moving into your own home. When you were in your mid-20s, you relocated to Australia. Your relationship ended and your partner returned to New Zealand. You then took care of three children under the age of five in Australia on your own.
26Your second relationship was with Elijah Morse, which lasted six years. You had three children together. Morse was violent towards you, and the police were frequently involved. [Redacted]. Morse died in 2019. By then you were taking care of six children.
27Your current partner supported you in court. Your relationship has lasted two and a half years. You live together in rented accommodation together with your 18-year-old son. You have two other adult children. Your other three young children are cared for by your father.
28You have a strong work ethic. You worked in a fish and chip shop at the age of 13. You left school at the age of 15 and worked in hospitality and office product sales. After moving to Australia, you worked at Pack N Save for five years and IGA for 10 years. You also worked at the St Albans Sports Club, Subway and Target. You stopped working as a result of these proceedings.
29You have a supportive family. I mentioned this before. Your partner, son and close friend attended court in support of you.
30Your counsel tendered two character references on your behalf. One, from a family support worker at the Salvation Army, stated that you have been 'actively engaging' and 'very cooperative'.[5] A person from a recovery support coach at Cohealth considers you to be hardworking, 'dedicated to change' and 'accepting of responsibilities in [your] life'.[6]
[5] Exhibit D2: letter dated 4 May 2023.
[6] Exhibit D3: letter dated 27 June 2022.
Psychological Report
31I mentioned earlier that you were assessed by psychologist Dr Aaron Cunningham, and that occurred on 8 February 2023.
32You reported to Dr Cunningham that in August 2021, you were assaulted by a female associate of Scott and sustained damage to your front teeth. In December 2022, you had a heart attack and crashed your car.[7]
[7] Ibid 2.
33You reported to Dr Cunningham that you smoked cannabis from the age of 13 or 14. You began to use methylamphetamine at the age of 30. In 2014, you ceased for nine months before relapsing towards the end of your second relationship. At the time of your offending, you were using 50 'points' a week. You continue to smoke methylamphetamine fortnightly and cannabis on a daily basis.[8]
[8] Ibid 3.
34Dr Cunningham assessed you as having significant elevations on the clinical syndrome scales for post-traumatic stress disorder ('PTSD'), generalised anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.[9]
[9] Ibid.
35In Dr Cunningham's opinion, you were suffering from PTSD precipitated by childhood abuse and domestic violence at the time of the assessment and at the time of your offending. Dr Cunningham stated that:
In my opinion, Ms Murray-McGregor's post-traumatic stress disorder was precipitated by the abuse in her childhood and perpetrated by the violence in her romantic relationships. In my opinion, Ms Murray-McGregor was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder during the period of her offences.
...
In my opinion, Ms Murray-McGregor's post-traumatic stress disorder is experienced by significant symptoms of depression and anxiety. She experiences distressing recollections of prior trauma, emotional disconnection, hopelessness, sleep disturbance, irritability, reckless and self-destructive behaviour and difficulty concentrating. In my opinion, Ms Murray-McGregor's drug abuse is partly motivated by numbing these symptoms. Ms Murray-McGregor's drug abuse contributes to her association with antisocial peers and is the main contributor to her offence behaviour. Ms Murray-McGregor stated that she lent her vehicle to her
co-accused. In my opinion, Ms Murray-McGregor's antisocial peer associations and drug abuse and not her post-traumatic stress disorder contributed to her offending.[10][10] Ibid 4.
36Dr Cunningham stated that you have 'symptoms of hypervigilance', 'a tendency towards hopelessness' and would need to be monitored in custody for 'thoughts of death'.[11] You reported a recent suicide plan to Dr Cunningham.[12]
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid 4.
Verdins Principle 1[13]
[13]Verdins v The Queen (2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’), 276.
37Based on this opinion, your counsel disavowed any reliance upon Verdins principle 1. That is, it is accepted that your mental health issues do not reduce your moral culpability for the purposes of enlivening Verdins 1. As Dr Cunningham said, it was your antisocial peer associations and drug abuse, and not your PTSD, which contributed to your offending.
38Nevertheless, I accept, based on what Dr Cunningham said, that your mental health conditions, in particular your PTSD, provide the contextual setting to your drug addiction and antisocial associations. Your drug abuse was partly motivated by a desire to numb the symptoms you were suffering with your PTSD. I consider this matter as relevant as a matter of general personal mitigation.
Disadvantaged Upbringing
39Your counsel emphasised your disadvantaged and dysfunctional upbringing, noting you had a 'traumatic' childhood within – and this is the phrase used by your counsel – a 'cloud of violence' perpetrated against you. This includes your history in orphanages, foster care, the violence perpetrated at home, and your transient homelife [Redacted]. Your counsel submitted that it should be given full weight as a relevant consideration – that is, your disadvantaged background – under Bugmy v The Queen (Bugmy).[14]
[14] (2013) 249 CLR 571.
40You identify as Māori and are of Māori heritage. Your counsel submitted that your Māori background is relevant to my consideration of the application of the Bugmy principles. In the end, I do not need to engage in drawing detailed parallels between Aboriginality as a sentencing consideration for Aboriginal Australians and those for Māori people. This is because I have concluded, quite apart from the Indigenous or Aboriginal dimension, that the principles of Bugmy are enlivened in your case based upon the specific evidence as it relates to you. I am mindful, however, of your Māori heritage. The prosecution also accepted that the Bugmy principles are enlivened.
41Whether, and to what extent, social disadvantage warrants a reduction in moral culpability in a particular case falls to be assessed by reference to all of the circumstances of the case, including the severity of the disadvantage suffered and whether the effects of the disadvantage can be seen to be explanatory, or causative, of the offending.[15]
[15]Sabbatucci v The Queen [2021] VSCA 340, [6].
42While cases have come before the courts where the deprivation is more profound and is more specifically explanatory of the offending than in your case, I accept that the level of your disadvantage was significant and that it has influenced the general setting in which this offending occurred. For example, as is apparent from the passage of his report which I have reproduced above, Dr Cunningham notes the link between your childhood trauma and your PTSD. These mental health challenges then partly explain your drug abuse, which in turn contributed to your association with antisocial peers, and ultimately this offending.
43It has been pointed out in the authorities that 'the impact of disadvantage is complex, multilayered, non-linear and not easily "diagnosed" or measured'.[16] This applies to you.
[16]DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160 [45].
44Your moral culpability is reduced in a general way by reason of your deprived background. It is an important factor in my sentencing of you.
45Significantly, you rose above your background of poverty, violence and disadvantage to become a law-abiding citizen until you reached 38 years of age. This stands to your great credit. It also informs the question of rehabilitation, which I will come to.
Verdins Principles 5 and 6
46Your counsel submitted that Verdins principles 5 and 6 are engaged. He based his submission upon Dr Cunningham's opinion that:
[E]xposure to further violence in a gaol environment would aggravate
Ms Murray-MacGregor's symptoms of hypervigilance. She has a tendency toward hopelessness and would have to be monitored under the stress of imprisonment ...[17][17] Exhibit D1: psychological report written by Dr Aaron Cunningham dated 14 February 2023 in relation to Ms Murray-MacGregor, 4-5.
47Reference was also made by your counsel to Dr Cunningham's report concerning your thoughts of suicide.
48According to Verdins principles 5 and 6 respectively, mental impairment may be relevant to sentencing in the following ways:
·The existence of an impairment may mean that a sentence of imprisonment may weigh more heavily on an offender than a person in normal health; and
·It will be a mitigating factor if there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significant adverse impact on an offender's mental health.[18]
[18]Verdins v The Queen (2007) 16 VR 269, 276 [32].
49Your counsel properly conceded that the mitigatory benefits in your case for these matters were not significant but warranted some recognition. I agree. I will make some due allowance for them.
Family Hardship
50Your counsel at the plea hearing did not seek to rely upon the principles of family hardship, that is, hardship which imprisonment creates for persons other than the offender. He accepted that exceptional circumstances could not be made out.[19]
[19] Your counsel explicitly walked back from the family hardship submission made by counsel at the sentence indication hearing.
51Your counsel did, however, submit that the hardship which your young children may experience, by reason of their absence from you, will weigh heavily upon you. You will be conscious that they will be deprived of the care of their mother. As outlined in Dr Cunningham's report, there is also a complicated history with your own upbringing related to your father, which has contributed to your own trauma.[20] All these matters will be a source of worry and anxiety for you. I take this into account.
[20] Exhibit D1: psychological report written by Dr Aaron Cunningham dated 14 February 2023 in relation to Ms Murray-MacGregor, 1.
Prospect of Deportation
52At the sentence indication hearing, your counsel submitted that you are not an Australian citizen. It was submitted that the burden of imprisonment is greater for you than for someone who does not face the risk of deportation once sentence is served.[21] That submission was reiterated upon the plea hearing before me.
[21] Da Costa v The Queen [2016] VSCA 49 [42], [44] (Maxwell P, Redlich and Priest JJA); Guden v The Queen [2010] VSCA 196 [27] (Maxwell P, Bongiorno JA and Beach AJA).
53You have strong and enduring family ties to Australia. You first moved to Australia when you were in your early 20s, and you are now 43 years old. Your partner and six children all reside in Australia. None of your children has the support of their own father.
54Without weighing into any assessment as to the likely outcome of deportation, or at least any detailed assessment, I accept that you are exposed to that prospect once you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. I also accept that given the strength and duration of your family ties to Australia (including your children) the prospect of deportation will increase the burden of your term of imprisonment. It is of some significance. I take that into account.
Plea of Guilty
55Your plea of guilty is certainly not an early one. The prosecution submitted it should be characterised as late.
56Until July 2022, you had been facing charges in relation to two separate armed robberies – this armed robbery before me, and another armed robbery. You entered a plea of guilty to this armed robbery on 19 July 2022. On the same day the prosecution discontinued the other matter. Your entry of your plea arose within the context of an overall resolution of the matters which you were then facing.
57It is true that the trial of this matter was due to start before me at this time. From a strict chronological point of view, the plea was late.
58I must, however, make allowance for the fact that this matter had a complex procedural history. This case cannot be compared with a matter where an accused is faced with one charged event, and where they enter a plea of guilty at the eleventh hour on the eve of the trial.
59I think the fairest way is to simply proceed upon the basis that the plea of guilty is certainly not an early one.
60I am prepared to accept that your plea of guilty, although not early, still encompasses an acceptance of responsibility and willingness to facilitate the course of justice. You entered the plea after I had given a sentencing indication to the effect that you would be required to serve a term of imprisonment. You seem to now accept the consequences of your actions.
61You receive the usual utilitarian benefit. Further, I also accept that your plea of guilty is significant in the context of a backlog of cases which has arisen as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, as recognised under the case of Worboyes v The Queen (Worboyes).[22]
[22]Worboyes v The Queen (2021) 96 MVR 344 [39].
62Your counsel emphasised that while we are now transitioning away from the pandemic, your plea was entered during the pandemic. I accept that. I think, however, the real point is that this court's criminal trial lists remain afflicted by the pandemic's effects. A pandemic-related backlog persists even if we are no longer in the midst of the health emergency. I will proceed upon the basis that the utilitarian benefit referred to in Worboyes continues to be generally applied.
63By contrast, your counsel did not make any submission that your conditions in custody will be more onerous by reason of COVID-19 restrictions. This seems to be an acknowledgment that you are not being sentenced in the grip of the pandemic.
Delay
64This matter has experienced some significant delay. There are many reasons for it, including:
·The pandemic;
·It was initially to proceed as a trial;
·You were charged with two armed robbery episodes, which led to a number of pre-trial rulings, some of which, I should add, were complicated;
·There has also been some recent delay since your entry of the plea of guilty which related to your securing of medical material in support of your plea.
65Whatever the reasons, as your counsel submitted, which I accept, the matter has been pending in some way since you were first spoken to by police on 30 January 2019.
66The delay is relevant in two ways. First, the matter and the prospect of punishment has been hanging over you for some four years. I accept that this must have been a burden to carry. Second, during this period, you have seized the opportunity to demonstrate a capacity to reform, which I will return to. I take delay into account in these ways.
Prospects of Rehabilitation
67A number of matters are in your favour when assessing your rehabilitation prospects:
·The fact that you have no prior convictions;
·The fact that you were able to overcome your disadvantaged background and contribute as a law-abiding adult citizen for some two decades (until this offending);
·It is unusual to have someone of your age come before this court for the very first time, facing such a serious charge;
·As I have noted above, you have not reoffended while you have been on bail for these matters, which was long and stressful period;
·Your acceptance of responsibility for this offence through your plea of guilty;
·Your children and partner are significant protective factors; and
·You have a strong work ethic.
68On the basis of these matters, I would consider your prospects of rehabilitation to be good. This is subject, however, to a qualification.
69Dr Cunningham assessed you as posing a 'moderate risk of future violent offending', which would be reduced by improving your mental health and life stability.[23] Dr Cunningham also observed that your drug use persists, and this is interrelated with your mental health and life stability. I will not allow this opinion to overwhelm my consideration of your prospects, which remain largely positive, but it cannot be ignored either. I am encouraged by Dr Cunningham's opinion that your PTSD (which is partly related to your drug use) can be improved by engaging in psychological intervention. Dr Cunningham's opinion also seems to also be partly based upon the frank manner in which you disclosed your drug use and lifestyle issues. You clearly have some insight. More generally, I am also encouraged by the fact that despite your mental health, life stability, and drug issues, you are before the courts for only the first time in your life.
[23] Exhibit D1: psychological report written by Dr Aaron Cunningham dated 14 February 2023 in relation to Ms Murray-MacGregor, 3.
70To conclude, I am cautiously optimistic about your future prospects.
Specific Deterrence and the Protection of the Community
71Specific deterrence and the protection of the community do continue to play a role in this sentence, though both are moderated by my generally favourable assessment of your future.
General Deterrence, Just Punishment, Public Denunciation
72I have for some time this morning been focused upon matters personal to you, many of which mitigate your sentence. I now return to the seriousness of your wrongdoing. The nature and gravity of armed robberies, especially at this level, calls for general deterrence, just punishment as well as public denunciation. These considerations, which loom large, must be weighed against the matters favourable to you.
73That said, there will be moderation of general deterrence in particular by reason of the Bugmy considerations.
Current Sentencing Practices
74I have considered current sentencing practices.
Parity
75Issues of parity do not arise. No one else has been sentenced for involvement in this offence. This includes Daniel Scott.
Possible Forfeiture of Your Motor Vehicle
76You will recall that I adjourned the hearing of that matter to a date to be fixed, and I will return to that. I am conscious there is an application on foot in relation to the forfeiture of your motor vehicle which was used in the course of the armed robbery. I have decided to refer that application to be determined under the Confiscations List. While I cannot predict the outcome of that application, the car is, on its face, tainted, and there is a very real prospect that it will be forfeited. I recognise the anticipated effect which the forfeiture of your vehicle might have upon you. On the evidence placed before me as part of your plea hearing, it is plain you are a person of limited economic means but with corresponding significant parenting obligations. Any forfeiture will have a punitive impact upon you and cause hardship. I take that prospect into account.
Disposition Submissions and Consideration
77The plea hearing was conducted by your counsel upon the basis that the only sentence open in this case is a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period[24]. No other disposition was pressed upon me at the plea hearing. Your plea was really aimed at persuading me to appropriately moderate the length of the period of imprisonment I impose by reason of the significance of the mitigating material placed before me and the principle of parsimony.
[24] This position had shifted since the sentence indication hearing. At that hearing defence counsel relied upon a combination of factors in support of his submission that a community correction order was capable of serving all sentencing considerations. He also submitted that for the purposes s5(2H)(e), these circumstances, in combination, were substantial and compelling and were exceptional and rare. I rejected both arguments, noting that a term of imprisonment accompanied by a non-parole period was demanded.
78The prosecution position has always been that the only disposition open was a sentence of imprisonment involving the fixing of a non-parole period.
79It was common ground between the parties that this armed robbery is a category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act 1991 pursuant to s5(2H) of the Sentencing Act 1991, on the basis that a firearm was used. This effectively means that absent a relevant exception being enlivened, a term of imprisonment, not in combination with a community correction order, must be imposed. In any event, your counsel did not seek to persuade me that any exception is engaged.
80I am of the view that in order to satisfy all the applicable sentencing considerations in your case, a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period is required. That is so based upon ordinary principles, quite apart from the operation of s5(2H)(e).
81The gravity of the offending is too great to impose anything less.
82That said, I fully recognise there are a number of powerful mitigating factors in your favour. They require me to moderate the head sentence I impose as well as the non-parole period which I fix. I do, however, have greater scope to reflect your personal and mitigatory circumstances in fixing the non-parole period. I will do this. This will result in a demonstrably lower non-parole period than I might otherwise have fixed. Constructing the sentence in this way will allow me to appropriately balance the objective seriousness of the offending (and the need to give effect to general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment) against the considerable mitigatory factors which you have called in aid.
83This will provide you with a relatively early opportunity to apply for parole. Should it be granted, you would benefit from a period of supervision, a proposition supported by your counsel.
Sentence
84On the charge of armed robbery, I sentence you to three years and four months' imprisonment.
85I fix a non-parole period of 15 months. This means that you will become eligible to apply for parole after you have served 15 months. That will be a decision for the Parole Board.
Section 6AAA
86Had you not pleaded guilty, pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that I would have imposed a term of imprisonment of five years with a
non-parole period of three years.
PSD
87I declare pre-sentence detention is 17 days. The matter with respect to the motor vehicle will be adjourned to the Confiscations List for directions on 20 June at 9.30 am.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
7
0