Director of Public Prosecutions v Padovano (a pseudonym)
[2019] VCC 1140
•25 July 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| LEVI PADOVANO (a pseudonym) |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE CARMODY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 27 May 2019, 3 June 2019, 19 July 2019 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 25 July 2019 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Padovano (a pseudonym) |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1140 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing
Catchwords: Sexual Penetration of a child under 16, Indecent act with a child under 16, possess child pornography.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991.
Cases Cited:DPP v DDJ [2009] VSCA 115, PDA v R [2010] VSCA 94, DPP v EB [2008] 186 A Crim R 314, R v SBL [1999] 1 VR 706, Calazzo (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 242.
Sentence:Total effective sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and three months’ imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms S. Coombes | Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr M. Ginsbourg | Randles Coopers Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1Levi Padovano[1], in the County Court at Melbourne on 27 May 2019, you pleaded guilty to the following seven charges on Indictment No.J10857652:
Charge 1, sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, this was an allegation of a tongue in the vagina, this charge has a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment;
Charge 2, sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, the allegation in that case was the finger in the vagina, this has a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment;
Charge 3 is an indecent act in the presence of a child to whom you are not married, that has a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment;
Charge 4, an indecent act in the presence of a child under 16 to whom you are not married, that has a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment;
Charge 5, this is a representative charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, in that case the allegation was a penis in the mouth one two occasions, that has a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment;
Charge 6, this is a representative charge of 106 occasions the allegations, and that is of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, the penis in the vagina, this has a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment and;
Charge 7, is knowingly possess child pornography on 7 December 2016, this charge also has a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
[1] A pseudonym.
2You have no prior criminal history. This is your first time in custody. You have been there since 27 May 2019. On my calculation that is a total of 59 days' pre- sentence detention.
Circumstances of your offending
3The prosecution tendered a summary of prosecution opening dated 20 February 2019. It was Exhibit “A” on the plea. Your victim, Lara Manessis[2] was a 13-year-old girl when your offending commenced. You were 33 years old when you commenced your offending. Your offending occurred between 28 April 2012 and 4 June 2014, which was her 16th birthday, a period of some two years and six weeks. You were part of the victim's extended family. You are the nephew of your victim's father's brother-in-law.
[2] A pseudonym.
Background
4In April 2012, you went on an extended family holiday to Thailand. You knew Ms Manessis was 13 years old and that she was in Year 8. The extended family remained on holidays for two weeks in Thailand. You engaged with your victim by raising sexual topics in conversation, telling her that she “turned you on”. You exchanged phone numbers and added each other to Facebook accounts.
Charge 1, 2 (Sexual Penetration of a child under 16) and 3 (Indecent Act with a child under 16)
5On Saturday, 28 April 2012, your victim went to a Shopping Centre to meet you. You told the victim not to tell her mother that you were meeting. After meeting you drove the victim to your house. Once at your home, you asked the victim for a “proper hug”. You then started kissing the victim on the mouth, that is an uncharged act. You then picked up the victim and carried her to your bedroom, laying her on the bed. You then started to undress the victim, she became shaky. You then told her to relax and then performed oral sex on the victim, that was the conduct relevant to Charge 1, before using your finger to rub and penetrate the victim's vagina. That was conduct relating to Charge 2.
6You then had the victim masturbate your penis. The victim had not ever seen anything like that before and you showed the victim how to do it. You said, 'I like the look of your small hand, like a small girl'. You ejaculated on your stomach. That was the conduct relevant to Charge 3. This sexual encounter occurred over the period of approximately one hour. At the conclusion of it, you dropped the victim back to Shopping Centre.
7Whilst maintaining regular contact via phone, you sent links and photographs of websites displaying pornography to her. These sites included incest, child pornography and child pornography stories. They were the uncharged acts.
Charge 4 (Indecent Act with a child under 16) and 5 (Sexual Penetration of a child under 16)
8Approximately two weeks after 28 April 2012, which was sometime between 28 April and 16 May 2012, your victim again travelled to a Shopping Centre and was collected by you. You drove her back to your house again. When you and the victim arrived at your home, you went straight up to your bedroom and started kissing. Your victim told you that she was on her period and did not want to have sex. You told her that she could do what you did last time. The victim said she did not know how to do that. You then said that ‘it was like how you could lick a lollypop’.
9You removed her top and touched her breasts. She had her underwear on. You rubbed your penis on the victim's vagina over the top of her underwear. That was the conduct relating to Charge 4. You then had the victim perform oral sex on you. That related to the Charge 5, which is a representative account. You told the victim that, 'You suck dick good for a 14-year-old', knowing that the complainant's 14th birthday was approximate. You then ejaculated in her mouth. You then told her, 'I never thought I would be doing this. This is so wrong'.
10After this day you maintained phone contact with your victim. Your victim states that you then started to ask for naked photographs of her and a video of her performing sexual activities on herself, including putting fingers in her vagina. You sent the victim photographs of your penis. The victim states that if the topic moved away from sexually explicit conversation, you would state that you were busy and unable to talk. You and the victim would contact each other via video phone, message and you would masturbate yourself while the victim watched. That is an uncharged act.
11Further conduct relevant to the representative Charge 5, was outlined earlier. Sometime in September 2013, the victim did not want to meet up with you at your house, so you met at Taco Bill's restaurant. The victim states this was the first time that they had been out like that before. The victim knew you wanted oral sex. You pushed the driver's seat of your car back and the victim got down where the pedals are, as she was so small. You then put your penis in her mouth and ejaculated in her mouth. After, you finished, you drove the victim closer to her home, dropped her off and she walked the remainder of the way home.
Charge 6 (Sexual Penetration of a child under 16)
12This is also a representative charge. The following are the factual bases for that offence. Between 1 May 2012 and 3 June 2014, you again went to a Shopping Centre and picked up your victim. You took the victim to your home. The victim states that you had arranged to have actual sex once at your home. You then undressed the victim's lower half. You told the victim, 'If it hurts, you tell me and I will stop'. You then put your penis inside the victim's vagina and had sexual intercourse. You did not wear a condom.
13Your victim started to bleed, so you removed your penis and wiped away the blood. You then continued to have sex with the victim until you took your penis out of the victim's vagina and ejaculated into the bathroom sink. After this, you and the victim watched the television at your home, before you drove her to her home address. You dropped the victim off at the end of her street so her mother would not see you with the victim.
14You continued to routinely see your victim, usually on Wednesdays and Saturday and would engage in sexual intercourse, typical of the conduct described relevant to Charge 6, which I have just read out. Approximately one week after 19 May 2012, you went to the victim's home. The victim's mother would work late every Wednesday, so you attended at that time to avoid seeing the victim's mother. You and the victim went into the victim's bedroom and you laid on the victim's bed on your back and had the victim get on top of you. She had left her school skirt on, as you wanted to see her wearing it. You then put your penis in her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her.
15You continued to have sexual intercourse with the victim until you took your penis out of the victim and ejaculated on your own stomach. You then went to the bathroom, cleaned yourself up, and then left the house. The victim states that you and her, 'Would catch up at least once every two weeks and have sex either at my place or his', meaning that you would put your penis in her vagina and have sex on each occasion.
16From May 2012 to April 2013, you were seeing the victim on no less than once a fortnight, either at your house or her house and would engage in sexual intercourse. The conduct was repeated on a total of 106 occasions. That is the representative charge of Charge 6. You told your victim that you were seeing other girls while in a relationship with your girlfriend. The victim describes you as, 'Nice', to her over the phone and when you would see her, it was strictly about sex.
17The victim recounts you accessing child pornography and incest related pornography regularly and sending her these types of materials. The victim states that, 'More often than not while I was with Levi and we were having sex, Levi would be looking at these types of things', specifically referring to the child pornography and the incest related material.
18In September 2013, when your victim was 15 years old, you contacted her to tell her that your girlfriend had moved out. Your victim told you that she wanted more of a relationship than just sex. You told her that you could not have a relationship with her until she had turned 18 years old. You would not see other girls, but your relationship had to be secret. You then continued to have sexual intercourse with her from this time and the victim states that every Wednesday from September 2013 until her birthday on 4 June 2014. The victim states this sexual intercourse refers to you putting your penis in her vagina and having sex. In her statement, the victim described the regular acts of penile vaginal penetration the following way:
'Every Wednesday I would go and do yoga with him. After that I would stay at his house. We would go back to his place and have sex. He did the same stuff as before. We would have normal sex. He would put his penis in my vagina. Levi still liked to look at the videos and the pictures of young girls on the internet, while we did it. We also regularly met on Saturday nights. I would finish work at 5 pm and go home. Mum would drop me off at the Shopping Centre to see my friends. I told Mum that my friends had discounts at Hoyts Cinemas, so that's why I went there. Or if I was more dressed up, I would make up other stories that I was going to a party at a friend's house, but I would just go to see Levi. Levi would pick me up and we would go out for dinner and whatever things like that. Afterwards I would stay at Levi's place and we would have sex'.
19On 4 June 2014, Ms Manessis turned 16 years old. You continued your sexual relationship with her until 1 January 2016, when Ms Manessis brought it to an end.
20In July 2016, the victim reported the matter to the police and subsequently provided a statement to them. She provided three mobile phones to the informant, Ms Case. The exhibits were analysed and a large number of messages showing an ongoing and intimate relationship between you and her existed as stated by her. Many messages are of an explicit nature, others refer to her fixation on keeping her weight down, “to stay small”. Examples of your communication with Ms Manessis were set out in the prosecution summary. On 29 September 2016, a pretext audio recorded phone call was attempted by her. You refused to speak to her.
Charge 7 (Possess Child Pornography)
21On 7 December 2016, you were arrested and interviewed by police. The police seized a Samsung Galaxy S7 mobile phone and computer tower with two hard drives from your home. Those hard drives were examined. This is Charge 7, possession of child pornography. Analysis of those exhibits located at your home was performed and child abuse material or child pornography was located. Your victim had stated that you would access this child abuse material throughout the relationship and used those materials whilst engaged with sexual intercourse with her.
22Acting Sergeant John Sherriff received the hard drives and has done an analysis of the material on it. On the 160-gigabyte hard drive it contained four digital files identified as child abuse material: one of them was of a child bathing, there was no sexual activity; one of them was sadism, bestiality and child abuse category; and three and four were adult non-penetrative images including child masturbating an adult male. The 80- gigabyte hard drive contained a total of 22 child abuse material images consisting of: five, no sexual activity; two of them, solo sex acts between a child; three of them were adult non-penetrative sex images; 11 were child penetration images and one of them was sadism, bestiality, child abuse category.
23You were interviewed by police on 7 December 2016. You denied ever having any type of intimate or sexual relationship with your victim. You denied possessing child abuse material. You stated that you had contact with the victim, however it was only a platonic interaction. You stated that your victim's mother was always aware of the interactions that you had with your victim. You were charged with the offending on 26 March 2018. You resolved the charge to a plea of guilty at the committal stage of the proceedings in November 2018.
Victim Impact Statements
24In this case, your victim, Lara Manessis[3] filed a victim impact statement dated 28 February 2019. It was Exhibit “B” on the plea. Ms Manessis sets out the mental health impact of your offending upon her. She suffers from depression and anxiety. Unfortunately, she has developed anorexia. She has engaged in self-harm and be hospitalised on two occasions due to excessive drug use. Ms Manessis has required the care of a psychiatrist and continues to do so. She has had to take time off school and work for treatment and appointments. On the social front, she has lost friends and now has great difficulty in trusting people. In her words, you took her childhood from her. Your offending has had a significant impact on the well-being and life of Ms Manessis. This will continue into the future.
[3] A pseudonym.
25Ms Angela Hurst[4], the mother of your victim, filed a victim impact statement dated 28 February 2019. That was Exhibit “C” on the plea. Ms Hurst speaks of her guilt at not knowing what you were doing to her daughter. The effect of your offending was to devalue the relationship between the mother and daughter. Ms Hurst states, she now suffers from depression, is on medication as a result of it. I accept the impact of your offending is wider than the direct victim, Ms Manessis.
[4] A pseudonym.
Personal Circumstances
26You are now 41 years old. You were born in, New South Wales. You are the middle child of three boys. You describe your family life as loving and supportive, that it was “tough but fair”. Your family remained in farming at Balranald until you were approximately eight years old. Your family then moved to the Glenroy area. You were educated at three different primary schools due to your family moving address. You completed your VCE studies and following secondary education, you studied for a Diploma of Banking and Finance. You did not complete that Diploma.
27You then undertook a traineeship in business administration. You have subsequently taken training in occupational health and safety, business management, logistics management, network and design. You have had a long and consistent work record. Your work has ranged over a number of employments as a security guard, production worker, forklift driver, debt collection, truck driver for a transport company and a garden supply business.
28You had one significant de facto relationship prior to your offending in this case. Between the age of 24 and 30 you were in a relationship which you described as “dramatic, chaotic and an emotional rollercoaster”. Your de facto became pregnant to you and left you to live with another man in Adelaide. Your daughter was born three months after that separation. You have engaged in a long and exhaustive legal battle to gain custody and access to your daughter. Despite that effort, you have seen your daughter on two hours of her 10-year-life. The court proceedings lasted for seven years, involving some 30 court appearances and cost you the sum of $130,000 in legal fees.
29 In 2016, you gave up on these legal proceedings. In the course of the custody legal proceedings you were offending against Ms Manessis. In 2016, you met your now wife, Wendy[5]. In December 2016, you were arrested and interviewed about the offending. You told your wife about the interview with the police. In 2017, you were engaged. In February 2018, you were married to Wendy. In March 2018, you were charged with these offences. Until your incarceration on remand for sentence on 27 May 2019, you were employed full time as a truck driver. You worked one day a weekend at a garden supply business as a truck driver. You were living with your wife in a house you have, which is subject to a mortgage.
[5] A pseudonym.
30You have been assessed by Dr Rachael Campbell, clinical psychologist. Dr Campbell's report was dated 25 February 2019 and was Exhibit “3” on the plea. Dr Campbell was required for cross-examination on 27 May 2019. She was not available on that date. The plea was adjourned to 3 June 2019, for the witness to be cross-examined. Again, Dr Campbell was not available. On that day, I ordered a Forensicare report to be obtained. On 19 July 2019, Dr Campbell was no longer required for cross- examination by the prosecution. In her report Dr Campbell assessed you as a moderate to low risk of sexual recidivism. Dr Campbell did not assess you as meeting the criteria for a diagnosis of paedophilia.
31Prior to your plea you sought treatment under a mental health care plan from Dr Rachael McKenzie, clinical psychologist. Dr McKenzie's report was dated 20 February 2019 and was Exhibit “2” on the plea. You have had seven one- hour sessions with Dr McKenzie. Dr McKenzie's opinion was that you did not meet the diagnostic criteria for any form of mental illness. Dr McKenzie did not assess you as meeting the criteria for paedophilia. She did not dismiss the possibility of a diagnosis of hebephilia. Dr McKenzie notes that during your treatment, you came to recognise that your offending was to meet your own needs and to boost your ego. You took advantage of an impressionable 13- year-old girl, to place yourself in a position of power and control over her.
32The Forensicare report was prepared by Dr Ming Wai Tam, psychologist, dated 10 July 2019. That was Exhibit “D” on the plea. Dr Tam assessed you whilst you were on remand. Dr Tam assessed you as a low risk of sexual reoffending. Dr Tam did not diagnose a major mental illness or personality disorder. However, Dr Tam stated as follows:
'Based on the referral information and interview, he does not meet the criteria of diagnosis of paedophilia. However, this clinical opinion is limited by a cross- sectional assessment. Further post-sentence assessment is recommended to clarify the diagnosis of paedophilia'.
33In summary, all clinical psychologists assess you as a low risk of sexual offending. Dr McKenzie and Dr Tam have expressed reservations about a diagnosis of either hebephilia or paedophilia respectively. They both express a view that this matter be further assessed in the future.
34You have physical health problems set out in the report of Dr Hai Bui, a surgeon. That was Exhibit “2”. You require a haemorrhoidectomy. You also complain of digestive problems, more particularly since your incarceration. These conditions are not of a level of significance that warrant a moderation of your sentence for these serious offences.
Sentencing Considerations
35The basic purpose for which a court may impose a sentence are: just punishment; deterrence, both specific and general; rehabilitation and denunciation of your actions; and the protection of the community. In sentencing you I must have regard to a range of factors, such as the seriousness of your offending, your culpability for it and your personal circumstances.
36I am also required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing your criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure, as far as possible, that you as an offender are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
37I am also required to take into account current sentencing practices in fixing your sentence. That enquiry is directed particularly but not exhaustively to the kinds of sentences imposed in comparable cases and the statistics for the sentences at that time. I have considered the statistics and the current sentencing practices, mindful that each case must be considered in the light of its own particular circumstances, and many of those cases would be distinguishable from your case, as indeed they are from one another.
38In the course of the plea, the learned prosecutor handed the court two authorities to assist in the issue of current sentencing practices. The first case was DPP v DDJ, which is reported [2009] VSCA 115. The second case was PDA v R [2010] VSCA 94. The DDJ case was dealing with the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years. The maximum penalty for that offence is 25 years. You are not charged with that offence. You have pleaded guilty to a representative charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, which is Charge 6. The maximum penalty for that charge is 10 years. You are also charged with other offences.
39Your offending under Charge 6 has all the indicia of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years, but you are not charged with that offence and hence, the case of DDJ is of limited assistance to the court directly, in assessing the current sentencing practices. The PDA case is more relevant, given the similar charges to your case. Your offending is more serious in some respects, than the offending in the PDA case but there are differences in your offending and the general circumstances that apply to the sentencing calculus in your case.
40You have pleaded guilty to this charge. Your plea of guilty was indicated at an early stage. Your plea does have the utilitarian value of allowing for the orderly and effective administration of justice. There is a certainty of outcome and the resolution of the substantive issues raised by your offending. Your plea allows for the preservation of the court and police resources to deal with other matters. Your plea vindicates the public confidence in the legal process set up to protect the community.
41Your plea is also a clear acknowledgement by you that you accept responsibility for your criminal behaviour on these occasions. Your plea also recognises you are willing to facilitate the course of justice in the community and I accept that your plea of guilty to these charges indicates and demonstrates some remorse on your part. Your plea has alleviated the need of your victim, Ms Manessis, to give evidence in a trial for these offences.
42You have no prior criminal history. You are to be sentenced as a person of previous good character. In cases involving sexual offending against children and possession of child pornography, previous good character is given less weight in the sentencing calculus.
43I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as reasonably good.
44You have a good work history, and this is a positive indicator that you could obtain employment after your term of imprisonment has been served. You have the support of your family and your wife, Wendy. You have been assessed as a low risk of sexual reoffending by the psychologists who have assessed you.
45The seriousness of your offending is indicated by the following matters:
(1) The fact that you used an extended family holiday to commence the grooming of your victim;
(2) The length of time that the offending continued against your victim, that is effectively from 28 April 2012 until 3 June 2014, which was her 16th birthday;
(3) The age difference between your victim, that she was 13 when you started and you were 33;
(4) The use by you of child pornography materials in the presence of your victim. This was driven by your need to, as I describe it, normalising your offending with the victim;
(5) Your encouragement to your victim to maintain a childlike body, leading to eating disorders for her;
(6) Your subterfuge in the meeting and covering up of your sexual offending from her family;
(7) Convincing your victim to send sexually explicit images;
(8) The number and frequency of your offending against your victim; and
(9) That you engaged in sexual penetration of her without using a condom.
46The offending by you is serious and you have a high moral culpability for it. In respect of Charge 7, possession of child pornography, general deterrence is the paramount consideration when sentencing offenders. A term of imprisonment is ordinarily warranted for such an offence. The nature and gravity of the child pornography offence is to be determined by four criteria:
(a) The nature and content of the material. In particular the age of the children and the gravity of the sexual activity depicted;
(b) The number of images or items possessed by you;
(c) Whether the material is for sale or further distribution; and
(d) Whether the offender will profit from the offending.
47In this case you had two hard drives that had child pornography images on them. The number of images and items are limited compared to the range of offences seen in this court. Nevertheless, these images show children involved in penetrative and non- penetrative sexual activity with adults. In total there were some 22 and more images of sexual activity between a child and an adult. The fact that you showed some of that child abuse material to your victim, raises your moral culpability for this particular offence. Some cumulation of your sentence for this offence is called for, to satisfy the principles of general and specific deterrence, denunciation of your action and just punishment. The concurrent part of this sentence reflects the need to avoid double punishment for the same actions being involved in the two separate offences.
48Charges 5 and 6 in this case, are representative charges. Charge 5, alleges sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, by introducing your penis into the mouth of a child on two occasions between 28 April 2012 and 30 September 2013. Charge 6, alleges sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, by introducing your penis into the vagina of the child on 106 separate occasions between 1 May 2016 and 3 June 2014. The first aspect of sentencing for a representative count is that it gives a wider context to the extent of the offending. The second aspect of sentencing in a representative count is that it is more serious than an offence where the offence is an isolated event.
49A representative charge is more serious than a single event charge and a higher sentence is appropriate in those circumstances. As Nettle JA, as he then was, in DPP v EB [2008] 186 A Crim R 314 at paragraph 15 said as follows:
'As the judge said, counts 1 to 5 were representative counts which made it appropriate to impose a higher sentence in relation to those counts than would be the case in relation to an isolated count. Admittedly, that notion is not without its conceptual difficulties because of the principle that a prisoner is not to be punished for uncharged acts. But as Batt JA explained in R v SBL, the fact that a count is a representative count serves to preclude it being said in mitigation of penalty that it was but an isolated offence, and, additionally, it enables the offence to be seen in its full circumstantial context. Thus a representative offence is likely to attract a greater sentence than an isolated offence'.
50This judicial pronouncement was based on the reasoning of Batt JA in R v SBL which is reported at [1999] 1 VR 706 at paragraph 70, His Honour said as follows:
'Not only does the fact that a count is agreed to be representative preclude its being said in mitigation that the offence was isolated, it affirmatively enables the offence to be seen in its full circumstantial context. The offender is not, by a loading of the sentence, to be punished for the represented offences, but the sentence for the representative offence may reflect the fact that it, the offence counted, occurred in the wider context. Consistently with the view which I have expressed about agreed representative counts, regard may in the present case be had to the adverse effect upon the victims of the whole of the conduct, which effect might not have been produced, or produced to the same extent, by the offences counted alone'.
51The above statements of principle have been cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Calazzo (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 242. In your case, the length of time and the number of events making up the representative Charge 6, call for a significant term of imprisonment.
52In this case there has been considerable delay between the time of your offending and your plea hearing on 27 May 2019. The offending was originally reported to police in July 2016 at or about that same time, you met Wendy, who is now your wife. In December 2016, you were interviewed by police and you were told you might be charged.
53In March 2018, you were charged with the offences. The delay between the record of interview and being charges is 16 months. You were engaged in 2017 and married to Wendy in February 2018, one month before being charged with these offences. Your family life has stabilised in that period of delay. You have continued to work and have not offended in that period of delay. I take into account these factors arising from the delay in this case, when fixing your total sentence.
54Under the Serious Offender provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991, after you have been convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of Charges 1 and 2, I am required on the sexual offences charges thereafter to regard the protection of the community from you, as a principle purpose for which the sentence is to be imposed. If necessary, in order to achieve that purpose of protecting the community, I am empowered under s.6D of the Sentencing Act, to impose a sentence greater than is proportionate to the gravity of the offences.
55This means that the sentencing task in respect of Charges 3 to 7 on the indictment, is to be undertaken on the basis that the protection of the community from you is a principle purpose for which the sentence is imposed. To achieve that purpose, a sentence may be imposed longer than that which is proportionate to the gravity of the offences considered in the light of the objective circumstances.
56Section 6E of the Sentencing Act requires that unless I otherwise direct, that with respect to Charges 3 to 7 on the indictment, the sentences that I impose on you are to be served cumulatively. I note that the prosecution did not call for a disproportionate sentence, or for all the cumulation contemplated under s.6D or s.6E of the Sentencing Act, allowing for the matters which I have outlined in these reasons.
57In my view it is appropriate to impose only that degree of cumulation to which I subsequently refer, reflecting as it does, the several events of sexual offending by you. To do otherwise may produce a sentence which is not appropriate and would breach the principles of totality in sentencing.
58You are to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender and a declaration to the effect pursuant to s.6F of the Sentencing Act is made in your case. I have fixed a non-parole period to give you a chance to earn the opportunity to re-enter society under supervision of the Adult Parole Board and to enhance your prospects of rehabilitation.
59Would you stand please?
60On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment;
61On Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment;
62On Charge 3, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment;
63On Charge 4, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment;
64On Charge 5, you are convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment;
65On Charge 6, you are convicted and sentenced to five years' imprisonment; and
66On Charge 7, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
67In respect to cumulation the base sentence is Charge 6, which is a five‑year sentence. And I order cumulation as follows:
68In respect to Charge 1, four months of that sentence;
69In respect to Charge 2, four months of that sentence;
70In respect to Charge 4, one month of that sentence;
71In respect to Charge 5, six months of that sentence; and
72In respect of Charge 7, three months of that sentence.
73All to be served cumulatively upon one another and on the base sentence in Charge 6.
74That is a total effective sentence of six years and six months' imprisonment. I order that you are to serve four years and three months' imprisonment before you are eligible for parole.
75But for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a period of eight years with a minimum parole of six years' imprisonment.
76I declare you have served 59 days' pre-sentence detention. As I said before, I declare that pursuant to s.6F of the Sentencing Act, you are sentenced as a serious sexual offender.
77I will make an order under the Sexual Offenders Registration Act that you are to report for your life. I have signed the s.464ZF order and I have signed the disposal order sought.
78MS COOMBES: As Your Honour pleases.
79MR GINSBOURG: As Your Honour pleases.
80HIS HONOUR: Can someone check the arithmetic to make sure I have got it right?
81MR GINSBOURG: Yes. It checks out from my point of view, Your Honour.
82HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
83MS COOMBES: Yes, the same, Your Honour. I agree with that.
84HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Padovano, the order I have made in respect to 464ZF is this, that I have made an order that the authorities can take from you a sample, which is a Buccal sample from inside your mouth. If you do not comply with that, they are authorised to use reasonable force to obtain one. Do you understand?
85ACCUSED: Yes.
86HIS HONOUR: Thank you. I will just have this sexual offender's register order shown to you. Mr Ginsbourg, you can assist if you wish.
87MR GINSBOURG: Thank you. I just realised my pen is red, Your Honour, that he has signed it in. Is that all right? Or do you want him to re-sign it?
88HIS HONOUR: Yes. I have got a blue one here. Thanks.
89MR GINSBOURG: He has signed that document.
90HIS HONOUR: Thank you very much. Ms Manessis, I understand that this whole process, I am talking now about the sentencing process and everything that happened before it, has been very difficult for you, but hopefully you can see this day as the first day of the rest of your life, to start with; and secondly, that you can do everything to get yourself better. Because you have a bright future in front of you. All right? You have a good life in front of you. You get out there and make the most of it. Thanks. You can remove the prisoner.
91HIS HONOUR: Thank you, counsel, for your assistance.
92MS COOMES: As Your Honour pleases.
93MR GINSBOURG: As Your Honour pleases.
‑ ‑ ‑
3
0