Director of Public Prosecutions v Newman (a pseudonym)
[2020] VCC 2055
•18 December 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| GUY NEWMAN (a pseudonym) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE TODD | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16 December 2020 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 18 December 2020 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Newman (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 2055 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL
Catchwords: Plea of guilty – one charge persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16 – Sentence Indication- offending in context of a marriage-like relationship - offender and complainant share two children- durable family relationship – utilitarian benefit of the plea – excellent prospects of rehabilitation in relation to sexual offending – circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958; Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 2006;
Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:DPP v Clarkson [2011] VSCA 157; DPP v Rutherford [2014] VCC
220; DPP v Versteeg 2020 VCC ; DPP vWilkinson 2017 VCC
1560; R v McLaughlin [2016] VSC 189; Stalio v the Queen 2012
46 VR 426.
Sentence: 2 ½ years imprisonment suspended for 3 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr D. Hannan | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms K. Blair | Criminal Lawyers Geelong |
HER HONOUR:
Sentence Indication Hearing
1
On 13 August 2019, the accused was committed to stand trial in the County Court. An Indictment and Summary of Prosecution Opening was filed. The accused Guy Newman[1] filed a Defence Response. He did not deny that he had been in a sexual relationship with the complainant over a lengthy period, but claimed that he believed, on reasonable grounds, that the complainant was
16 or older at the relevant times.
[1] A pseudonym.
2 Originally, this case was listed for trial in a Regional Circuit in May 2020. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial was adjourned and the case referred to the emergency case management process. On 22 October 2020, that process culminated in the accused’s application for a sentence indication on a revised draft Indictment, a single charge of persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16.
3 A pre-condition to the making of such an application is the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which was given.
4 Pursuant to s.207 of the Criminal Procedure Act, at any time after the Indictment is filed, the court may indicate that, if the accused pleads guilty to the charge on the indictment at that time or another charge, the court would, or would not, as the case may be, be likely to impose on the accused a sentence of imprisonment that commences immediately.
5 I adopted the reasoning of Justice T Forrest in the case of R v McLaughlin[2] that the phrase ‘a sentence of imprisonment that commences immediately’ must be taken to carry with it the practical consequence that, upon sentencing, the person who has pleaded guilty will be actually imprisoned from the time of sentence and extending into the future.
[2] [2016] VSC 189.
6
On 8 December 2020, the court indicated that, in all the circumstances, if
Mr Newman entered a plea of guilty to the charge, it would not impose a sentence of imprisonment to commence immediately. On 16 December 2020, Mr Newman was arraigned and entered a plea of guilty to the charge and a plea hearing was conducted.
Pleas of guilty and maximum penalties
7
Guy Newman, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16, an offence that carries a maximum penalty of
25 years’ imprisonment.
8 The factual basis for your offending is contained in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Sentence Indication, dated 11 November 2020, which became Exhibit A on the Plea. I will not repeat those facts in detail here but note that that Opening forms part of these reasons.
9 You were aged 26 years during the offence period and the victim was aged 15. You and the victim were in an intimate relationship from 1 May 2007 until April 2012. Two children were born as a result of the relationship. You first met her in April 2007. It was a chance meeting. You were playing in a poker tournament with her father and she was present.
10 About two weeks later you met the victim again, this time at her father’s house. You were present when her father was expressing his frustration that his wife, the complainant’s mother, was wanting to take her 15 and 13-year-old children with her in a separation. The prosecution said that this is when you learned the victim’s age was 15.
11 You spent time alone with the victim that night. You asked her to go outside with you. You kissed her under a tree outside her father’s house. One of the other guests saw you when he went outside. That night the victim left with you. You asked her if she wanted to 'go out' with you. You communicated and became close and intimate over the next few weeks.
12 The victim’s home life was unhappy at this time. An agency had arranged for her to live in a hostel. You convinced her to move in with you. She was still at school. You told her you were 23 and she believed you.
Charge 1: Persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16
Particular (a)
13
Around 10 May 2007, the victim moved in to live with you. The victim was
15-and-a-half years old at this time. The first night she moved in was the first night you had sexual intercourse. You had been drinking and gave her alcohol. You were in the bedroom, you put on a condom, inserted your penis into her vagina, you ejaculated and, at some point, the victim noticed that the condom was no longer on. She argued with you about that as she was not using any other contraception at the time.
Particular (b)
14 In May 2007, the victim’s brother was helping you move in together. While the victim’s brother was in the house, you asked the victim for 'a quickie'. You had sex with her with a blanket covering your back. The victim’s brother came into the bedroom and saw you. The victim’s brother ignored her plea not to tell their mother. The victim recalls getting in trouble from her mother as a result.
Particular (c)
15 Within about six weeks of having moved in together, the victim began to experience severe vaginal pain. On 11 July 2007 she visited the doctor and was treated with antibiotics for genital herpes.
16 A few days later you attempted to have sex with her, but the victim resisted you as she was still in pain. You said to her, 'Well if you can't go up that track, we'll go up the dirt track instead'. You penetrated her anally while she was on her knees. It was painful for her and she told you to stop. She pulled away from you to stop the penetration and put her clothes on.
Particular (d)
17 On 5 July 2007, it was your birthday. You asked the victim to have anal sex with you. You told her that it was your birthday and that previous girlfriends had allowed this. The victim told you that, 'If you ever went back there again, she would kick you in the head or knee you in the groin'. You replied that it would be hard to do that 'when you're on your knees'.
18 The victim, expecting vaginal intercourse, got onto her knees. You pushed your penis into her anus. It hurt, but you continued to penetrate her in this way. The victim told you to get off.
Particular (e)
19 You and the victim ended up spending the rest of the day at a nearby house with a friend. You drank alcohol. When you returned home you became apologetic about the earlier incident involving the anal sex and repeatedly asked for sex. The two of you had penile/vaginal sexual intercourse.
20 About 4 months into the relationship, the victim recalls requiring money to purchase her contraceptive pill. She had previously been given a sample pack of prescription medication that had run out. You apparently refused to fund the contraceptive pill as you were keen to father a child with her. As a result of not having the money, the victim did not take the pill for a number of days. She continued to regularly have sexual intercourse with you, and only with you. She fell pregnant.
21 On 13 December 2007, she had a procedure to terminate that pregnancy at a clinic. You went with her with another family member and a friend.
Particular (f)
22 Sometime around late September and early November 2007, whilst she was pregnant, you and the victim had an argument at home. Her parents came to assist her and wanted the victim to leave with them. She resisted this and went back into the house with you. You resolved your argument and had sexual intercourse.
23 This relationship continued for a number of years. Your first child was born in 2010 and your second in 2011.
24 On 16 April 2012, the victim left the family home, taking the two children with her. This was the end of the relationship.
Report to Police
25 The victim made her complaint to Police on 3 July 2017.
Arrest and Interview
26 You were interviewed by Police on 23 October 2018. You answered questions. Broadly, you acknowledged that you had been in a sexual relationship with the complainant but denied knowing that she was under 16 until some way into the relationship. You denied any memory of some of the particular details that were alleged, such as the visits to the termination clinic, and denied that other events took place, such as being responsible for her contracting herpes.
Prior criminal history
27 You admitted a very limited prior criminal history, which I do not regard as relevant. You went to court twice in 2004 for unrelated forms of offending and on each occasion received a without conviction fine.
28 You do have some subsequent offending, which becomes relevant to other sentencing considerations.
Subsequent criminal history
29 Exhibits C and D on the Plea set out your subsequent criminal history in Victoria and New South Wales respectively. There are some offences of dishonesty but, relevantly, there are offences committed in relation to the complainant in this case, in particular for the persistent breach of a family violence intervention order and related offences. I will return to these matters later in the sentence.
Procedural history
30
The offence period was between 1 May and 14 November 2007 when
the victim turned 16. The first report to Police was made some ten years later on 3 July 2017. On 23 October 2018, you were arrested and interviewed. This was over a year after the first Police report was made. You were charged on 11 January 2019. On 13 August 2019, you cross-examined the victim in a committal hearing in the Magistrates’ Court. I have already outlined the procedural history of your case after it entered the County Court jurisdiction. I will return to these facts when considering delay in your case.
Pre-sentence detention
31
You were taken into custody on 8 February 2019 and released on bail on
15 February 2019 . There are, therefore, seven days of presentence detention available on this sentence.
Nature and gravity of the offending; culpability and degree of responsibility
32 Through your counsel, you conceded that the offence of persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16 years is a serious offence. I first make it clear that the issue of the victim’s willingness or ostensible consent does not arise here. At age 15-and-a-half, she was legally incapable of consenting and I accept that her agreement to participate in sexual activity was an aspect of her immaturity.[3]
[3]DPP v Clarkson [2011] VSCA 157.
33 The structure of the charge of persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16 pursuant to s.47A of the Crimes Act, as then in force[4], requires at least three particulars of occasions where the sexual abuse took place. Each particular must be an offence under subdivisions 8A[5] or 8B or 8C. Here, six occasions have been particularised. Each occasion is pleaded as conduct that amounts to the offence of sexual penetration of a child under 16. Some events - I am referring to the anal penetration - were more unpleasant and more memorable than others. But I am not invited to, and will not, sentence on any offence that is more serious than sexual penetration of a child under 16.[6]
[4] As amended by the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 2006.
[5] Subdivision 8A includes rape, compelling sexual penetration, indecent assault, assault with intent to rape.
Subdivision 8B includes incest, sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16, and indecent act with a child
under the age of 16. Indecent acts with a 16 or 17 year old child, sexual penetration of 16 or 17 year old child,
facilitating sexual offences against children, are also captured under subdivision 8C.
[6] The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383.
34 It is important in assessing the gravity of your offending that your offending took place in the context of what developed into an adult marriage-like relationship into which, in its lawful phase, two children were born and, until that relationship broke down some years later, were raised by you as a couple. I accept that, despite its flaws, the relationship was one of some duration, affection and significant adult responsibility. It was put on your behalf, and I accept, that you believed you had found your life partner. This relatively durable family relationship, although not able to ultimately stand the test of time, does distinguish your offending from many apparently similar cases where the sexual activity is more purely predatory and more purely exploitative of a younger person.
35 Your victim was aged 15-and-a-half to 16 during the offence period, a time when she was on the very cusp of her transition into the age where the law says she is capable of choosing her sexual partner.
36 Ultimately, the victim chose to end the relationship. Family law proceedings ensued where the care of the children was, and I understand still is, the subject of litigation. Those proceedings unfolded from approximately 2012. In 2017, the victim made these allegations. I accept that you were, and are, making efforts to remain an active and dedicated father within the family unit.
37 The twin risks of pregnancy and the contraction of a sexually transmitted disease manifested in the unlawful period of this relationship. You were the adult and allowed both these things to happen. This is an aggravating feature of your offending.
38 It is a particularly difficult case to arrive at a neat description of how grave this offending was. The victim was nearly 16 and the relationship was, for a time at least, one of enduring affection. However, the impact on her has been serious and included invasive and painful consequences for her body. I take all these matters into account when considering the nature of your offending. I will deal with the psychological consequences for her later in these reasons.
Personal circumstances
39 Mr Newman, you are now aged 40. You were 26 during the offence period. You had a difficult start in life. When you were an infant your mother attempted to smother you with a pillow after she had overdosed on sleeping tablets. You were then put into a state children’s home before going to live with your father and paternal grandparents. You saw your mother only occasionally during your childhood. You were primarily raised by your paternal grandmother. She is now 106 years old and you are still close with her.
40 Your mother went on to have several different relationships. She has nine children, each with a different father. You have some limited contact with some of your half siblings.
41 You suffer from scoliosis of the spine. You have had surgery to correct the condition but you still need monitoring in a spinal clinic every 18 months.
42 You finished Year 12 and have worked on and off in technology, childcare, business and accounting. You were acknowledged as a valued employee in the Telstra call centre where you worked for 10 years. You found this work sustaining and you were good at it.
43 When the relationship dissolved, the victim moved to a different regional city with the children. You left your job with Telstra to move to that city so you could be closer to them.
44 You worked in a range of other jobs, such as sorting mail and washing dishes and working as a delivery driver. You now have a new partner and she has three children from a previous relationship. You assist her with the care of the children as if they are your own. The relationship has persisted for over three years. You now live between her home and your father’s home. You have no drug or alcohol problems or any particular sexual disorders. There are no major mental health problems that trouble you.
Impact on the victim
45 The victim filed an eloquent victim impact statement. It was not read aloud, and I take into account its relevant parts. She speaks of how your offending consumes much of her thoughts, that there has been an impact on her mental health and that she feels isolated. She speaks of how it affected her ability to parent happily. Your offending has made her anxious about her own children and how they go about in the world. She says she deserved better and that she deserved to feel safe, and she is perfectly right about that. This behaviour is prohibited by law because of its substantial and enduring effect upon its victims. I take into account the significant and lasting effects of your offending upon her.
Matters in mitigation
Plea of guilty
46 I regard your plea of guilty, in the circumstances that it was made, to be exceptionally valuable. This would have been a complex trial. The original indictment contained more and different charges across different time frames, which would have involved a very complex series of legal directions to be given to a jury. Such complexity would have given rise, potentially, to applications for severance. The avoidance of this trial, or trials, has delivered a very significant utilitarian benefit to the court and to the community.
47 A very significant aspect of the value of your plea is that the complainant was spared from giving evidence in front of a jury. Even a highly sensitive and responsible cross-examination would have had to traverse very intimate material and would have had to challenge her credibility and reliability. Your plea has avoided the need for that. Conviction on all charges was not necessarily assured. Moreover, your plea has vindicated what the complainant says and, it is hoped, assists her to recover and to receive support from family and friends.
48 Your plea also prevented a family, which still has the task of raising two children before it, to be put through the personal and damaging trial process.
49 Further, a plea of guilty in the context of the crippling impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial waiting times is particularly valuable and should be publicly seen to be valued.
Burden on family
50 You have worried about the potential impact of your absence due to incarceration upon your father, grandmother, partner and upon your children. It was submitted on your behalf that this worry would make any period of imprisonment more onerous on you and I accept that submission.
51 Currently, even though the health situation in Victoria has improved, protective quarantine and other restrictive conditions persist in the custodial environment. It was submitted, and I accept, that the Court should take into account the additional stress for prisoners and their families.
52 It was submitted that you have good prospects of rehabilitation. You have the support of your father, partner and some friends. You have not offended in a similar manner for the last 13 years. Specifically, you have not committed any sexual offences since this offending in 2007. You are currently in an enduring relationship with a partner of an appropriate age.
Remorse
53 I accept that your plea of guilty also contains within it an aspect of remorse.
Delay
54 I have already set out the chronology of your offending, the complaint and the court process. I take the delay in your case into account in two ways. First, it is a matter of some significance that you have not committed any sexual offences in the last 13 years. This reduces the need for specific deterrence and for community protection.
55 The second is that you have lived under the shadow of these proceedings now for some years. Although the complaint was made in 2017, you were not arrested and interviewed until October 2018 and not charged until early 2019. I accept that this period would have been onerous for you.
Psychological material
56
On your plea your counsel tendered a psychological report authored by
Ms Carla Lechner. The report did not cause any particular submissions to be made in relation to your mental health. Helpfully, the psychologist found that you did not exhibit symptoms of any underlying psychological or psychiatric disorder. You did not exhibit any evidence of substance abuse problems nor of a personality disorder. Apart from this case, it appears that you have an 'otherwise unremarkable sexual history'. It appears that the value of this report lies in what it does not say, that is, that you have no particular psychological or psychiatric conditions that will hamper your rehabilitation nor do you suffer from substance abuse or particular sexual problems.
Prospects of rehabilitation
57 You retain the support of your father and grandmother, although, you have only been able to see her through a window at her nursing home in the context of the pandemic. You are in a stable relationship with a new partner and display responsibility towards the children in that relationship.
Character references
58 A number of character references were tendered on your behalf. Since this case was determined, you have completed various Community Corrections Orders for unrelated offending. One of them caused you to enter the Bridge Project. Mr Luke Moody, convenor of that project, writes of your being an extremely engaging participant. Your role in the project converted to an employment placement. You demonstrated yourself to be reliable, dedicated and hard-working. You have remained in contact with Mr Moody for some time after your obligations on the order were over. Other references of Katie Mann[7] and Brian Newman[8] testify to your being a good father to your children and a great help to your father who is in poor health.
[7] A pseudonym.
[8] A pseudonym.
59 Also tendered on the plea was a Children’s Contact Service report, Exhibit 2, which sets out some of the history of your child contact during 2017 and 2018. The report describes you as willing and flexible in the context of your child contact arrangements. I accept that you have been and continue to be an attentive father in difficult circumstances.
Work history
60 I have already set out your work history. You are currently doing some delivery driving for a company doing domestic deliveries from the Victorian lockdown. You drive between about 9 or 10 am until about 3 pm when you help with the after-school routine for your partner’s children.
Subsequent convictions
61 I have to deal with your subsequent convictions and how they affect my assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation. Most are not relevant to this sentencing process, but I do acknowledge that you have, amongst other things, breached intervention orders in relation to the victim. I understand that a number of those breaches were constituted by posting material about child contact and photos on Facebook or by visiting the school.
Engagement with treatment
62 In the end, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation in the realm of sexual offending to be excellent. Your more general prospects of rehabilitation, in terms of not offending in the future, are slightly less good, however, the cumulative matters I have set out here encourage me to conclude that your rehabilitative prospects of not offending more generally are good.
Relevant sentencing principles
General deterrence, specific deterrence, just punishment, community protection
63 I regard the role for general deterrence in this case to be high. This sentence must encourage others who attempt to have relationships, even enduring ones, with young people who are incapable of giving true consent, to desist. I regard the need for specific deterrence, that is, to deter you personally from doing any such thing again, to be negligible. I must also consider the role for just punishment. You must be punished for what you did. This sentence must also denounce this conduct. It is entirely unacceptable that a person of 26 years takes a 15-and-a-half-year-old into a sexual relationship before she is able to know and articulate her own wishes and desires. The seriousness with which Parliament regards your conduct is reflected in the 25-year maximum penalty.
Regard to current sentencing practices
64 I have had regard to current sentencing practices. I acknowledge that in most cases where this charge is before a court, the accused person receives a sentence of imprisonment to be served immediately. That is the sentence the prosecutor urged, at least initially, in this case. The prosecutor has also acknowledged that dispositions for comparable cases are of little of assistance to the Court. I was referred to the cases of DPP v Rutherford [2014] VCC 220, DPP vWilkinson [2017] VCC 1560, to Versteeg [2020], amongst others. I have also had regard to the sentencing landscape in this offence category and taken it into account.
65 Your counsel urged me to impose a Community Corrections Order in your case. Her submission was, that having regard to the principles articulated in Boulton[9], that all the appropriate sentencing aims could be properly served by such an order. I disagree. The offending is too serious and too harmful, even in the context of your exceptionally valuable plea and the role for general deterrence where this form of offending is involved.
[9] Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342.
66 Your counsel also submitted that I should have regard to the sentencing practices at the time of your offending, that is, in 2007, for similar offences. These are not to be regarded as current sentencing practices per se,[10] but should be considered for the purposes of imposing equal justice with those who were sentenced in 2007. I have turned my mind to the current sentencing practices as far they are discernible in 2007. I have turned my mind to the sentencing practices, as far as they are discernible in 2007. The statistics are of limited assistance for the usual reasons.
[10]Stalio v the Queen 2012 46 VR 426.
Suspended sentence: statutory considerations
67 Pursuant to s.27 of the Sentencing Act as then in force, I have the power to impose a wholly suspended sentence if I am satisfied that such a sentence is appropriate due to the presence of exceptional circumstances and that it is in the interests of justice. The offence of persistent sexual abuse of a child was defined as a serious offence for the purposes of the suspended sentence provisions available at the time of the offending in late 2007. I must also consider the sentence appropriate, having regard to the matters in s.27(1A), including the impact on the victim, the need for deterrence and whether the sentence adequately denounces the conduct, and I have given each of these matters careful consideration.
68 I add here that the Prosecution consented to this matter being the subject of a sentencing indication application, but nevertheless, also submitted, as they are perfectly entitled to do, for an immediate sentence of imprisonment and one that involves your incarceration for more than 12 months, though in later submissions appeared to resile from that position somewhat. I have carefully considered this submission. The decision to not impose a sentence of immediate imprisonment in this case has not been arrived at lightly or without difficulty.
69 Having regard to all the circumstances, in particular the delay in your case, the enduring nature of the relationship, the age of the victim at the time of your offending, and most particularly, the extraordinarily high value of the plea of guilty, I find that exceptional circumstances exist that allow me to impose on you a sentence of imprisonment that is wholly suspended and I note these reasons in the record of the court.
70 However, having said that, and having regard to the seven days that you have already served, I am not obliged to find the existence of exceptional circumstances if I only partially suspend your sentence, and that is what I propose to do.
Disposition
71 Mr Newman, on the charge of persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two years. Pursuant to s.27 of the Sentencing Act 1991 as then in force and having regard to the matters in s.27(1A), I suspend all but seven days of that term of imprisonment for a period of three years.
72 I am obliged to explain to you what that really means. It means you have got two years of imprisonment hanging over your head. If you commit any offence punishable by a term of imprisonment during the next three years, you breach the suspended sentence and you come back to court and you will be obliged to serve that period of imprisonment immediately, absent very extraordinary circumstances. What that means is, if you commit any crime that you could get gaoled for, you breach the suspended sentence. It does not have to be similar to this, and most crimes do attract a term of imprisonment. It does not mean that you have to get a term of imprisonment, but anything that could give you gaol will breach the suspended sentence. So you really need to be very careful to avoid breaching this sentence.
Pre-sentence detention
73 Pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that seven days have already been served pursuant to this sentence.
Section 6AAA reduction
74
Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that, had you not pleaded guilty but were found guilty after a trial, I would have sentenced you to a period of three years imprisonment to be served immediately with a
non-parole period of two years.
- - -
HER HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Newman, you can take a seat. What now remains is to deal with the s.50 obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act. Mr Hannan, there's a mandatory registration for life pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act.
MR HANNAN: Yes.
HER HONOUR: What I propose to do is to hand down the documentation after I give a brief explanation to Mr Newman. I think I'm obliged to give him some understanding of his obligations, but then what I'll do is perhaps get Ms Blair to take a moment with Mr Newman so that he understands, if perhaps not every detail in this document, then the immediate and general effect of it before he signs.
MR HANNAN: Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Mr Newman, because of your plea, you are automatically liable for registration under the Sex Offenders Registration Act. You may have already had some advice about this. It's important that you understand that failure to comply with your obligations may result in you getting charged and you could get a fine and/or imprisonment. So, again, a failure to adhere to these obligations, would breach your suspended sentence very likely. If you don't fully understand your obligations, you need to get advice about that and do that quickly because it starts straight away.
You must report to Victoria Police within seven days of this sentence. So you have a week within which to report and the reporting also requires you to fulfil a range of conditions in terms of telling the Police about where you live, where you work, other personal details that they'll need to be appraised of. So for today, what is really important is that you understand that you have fairly onerous obligations and that you need to attend to them. So what I'll do is hand down the documentation, which is the Notice of Obligations and ask Ms Blair - it's a lengthy document and I don't expect you'll have the chance to go through it all now, but I'll ask Ms Blair to. Mr Hannan, is that sufficient in terms of the court's obligation to notify about obligations?
MR HANNAN: Yes, Your Honour, I consider it to be sufficient.
HER HONOUR: All right.
MR HANNAN: Sometimes they just give them notice, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Yes, Ms Blair, has Mr Newman had an opportunity to sign the documentation for the order?
MISS BLAIR: He signed the acknowledgement that he's received the - - -
HER HONOUR: The Notice.
MISS BLAIR: - - - information, yes.
HER HONOUR: All right, terrific. All right, is there anything else we need to do, counsel?
MISS BLAIR: Is there the media issue?
HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Last time I raised the application for documents in this case and I asked the parties to reflect about it. You may have noticed in the sentence I made some references vague and general so as to perhaps assist with the non-identification issue. The name of the victim is not to be published in any evidence because of the reporting rules about victims of sexual offending, so the media can't and won't report her name, and I've given children initials and cities vague descriptions. Is there anything that the parties wish to add about that?
MISS BLAIR: In my submission, it probably should be a pseudonym or released under pseudonym.
HER HONOUR: I see, yes. You mean the whole case?
MISS BLAIR: The whole case, yes - - -
HER HONOUR: All right.
MISS BLAIR: - - - which would perhaps protect the children.
HER HONOUR: Yes.
MISS BLAIR: That's the major concern. I appreciate that, in an open court sitting that ordinarily Mr Newman's name would be not suppressed in any way and not anonymised.
HER HONOUR: No, but the presence of the children imbedded in the reasons is a good argument for it being a pseudonym case.
MISS BLAIR: And, Your Honour, I think the request was made for the defence response. I don't have any issue with the defence response, but given Your Honour's reasons which will be published, in my submission, it would be unnecessary to give the submission to the sentence indication that were provided.
HER HONOUR: Look, I'd agree with that. I think that the record is probably quite - dealt with in quite some detail in the reasons. Rather than releasing that document, I think that's probably right. So what's been applied for is the Prosecution Opening, the Indictment and that document. But I think that's - in fact, I think probably all the documents are probably summarised in the reasons, but that's not really my judgment. I'll release the documents pursuant to order to anonymise the name of the case. But the technical pathway to doing that, right now is something I need to get advice about in terms of the structural aspects of how the court goes about that. But if I encounter difficulty with that, I might invite the parties to assist, but I don't think a suppression order itself is necessary and therefore we can avoid those provisions et cetera. Mr Hannan, do you have anything to add about this process?
MR HANNAN: No. No, I don't, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: You don't object to the reasons being released under a pseudonym?
MR HANNAN: No, I don't. I can't.
HER HONOUR: Yes.
MISS BLAIR: The only other thing that I would ask is that - and I'm not sure that it's in there - but there's any address of Mr Newman that that be redacted.
HER HONOUR: I was careful not to put addresses in but we'll check that again.
MISS BLAIR: I'm just not sure if the Opening, that is released, whether it does. It probably doesn't and the Indictment doesn't probably either, but the opening may have reference to - - -
HER HONOUR: I think it does. I think it does and places. What I will do is release the reasons, which we can do quickly, but not the documents because the documents are replete with true names, locations, addresses and other identifying materials. Mr Hannan, does that raise - and I think the reasons will assist the media to fully report the detail of the case summarised in the indictment.
MR HANNAN: (Indistinct) Your Honour, yes.
HER HONOUR: Yes. All right, I'll just check whether there's anything else I need from you about that. I'll communicate if necessary but I hope that we can make that happen and make that happen as quickly as possible to assist those media representatives who wish to report the case. All right, unless there's anything else we will rise until 10 am and I thank counsel for their assistance in this case. It's been a long one.
MR HANNAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
- - -
0
4
0