Director of Public Prosecutions v Parsons
[2024] VCC 880
•13 June 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-23-02178
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CHRISTOPHER PARSONS |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE D. SEXTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 25 March 2024 and 23 May 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 13 June 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Parsons | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 880 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Recklessly Causing Serious Injury; Committing Indictable Offence on Bail
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:Ashe v R [2010] VSCA 119; DPP v Betrayhani 2019 VSCA 150; Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269; Ha (a pseudonym) v R [2021] VSCA 64; Mazzonetto v The Queen [2022] VSCA 153; McLean v The King [2023] VSCA 6
Sentence: Six Years and Nine Months Imprisonment with a Non-Parole Period of Four Years and Ten Months Imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr Marshall | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr J. Mitchell | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1Christopher Parsons, on 25 March 2024, you pleaded guilty before me to an indictment containing one charge of recklessly causing serious injury, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. You also pleaded guilty to the related Summary Offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, which carries a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
2You also admitted your criminal record.
Circumstances of offending
3The circumstances of your offending were set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 8 March 2024, Exhibit 1 at your plea hearing.
4Your offending can now be briefly summarised.
5On Tuesday 27 June 2023, you were aged 49 and were, essentially, homeless. At approximately 6:35 pm, a witness observed you walking down Fitzroy Street in St Kilda. You were apparently pushing a trolley holding your personal belongings. Shortly after this, this same witness observed the victim in this matter, 70-year-old Mr McLeod, walking in the same direction as you and eventually walking beside each other.
6This witness observed you mumble something under your breath, then step away from Mr McLeod, turn towards him and punch him in the face. As a result of this punch, Mr McLeod fell and hit the pavement. He was seen to have blood coming out of either the back of his head or his ear and appeared to be unconscious. Other witnesses observed Mr McLeod to be lying on the footpath, facing upward, with a lot of blood coming from his head.
7At this point, members of the public who had witnessed the event began to yell at you, asking why you did it. You reportedly responded, 'because he is a paedophile', and 'he has children in the back of his car'. Other witnesses reported that you were acting aggressively towards people, screaming, and at times picking up the trolley. One of these witnesses took a photograph of you in this state.
8A short time later at approximately 6:45 pm, police attended the scene and were shown a photograph of you and given a verbal description, including that you had a trolley loaded with your personal belongings. They also observed Mr McLeod to be lying on the ground and not moving, with a large laceration to the back of his head. He was also observed to be vomiting.
9Later that evening at approximately 8:40 pm, police were conducting a mobile patrol in the suburb of Balaclava and observed you sitting next to the entrance of a Coles supermarket with a bottle of wine and a shopping trolley holding a number of your personal belongings. Police observed you to be highly intoxicated.
10You were placed under arrest for assault and handcuffed. During this process you were apparently yelling ‘he deserved it, he is a paedophile!’. You were then taken to St Kilda Police Station where you gave a 'no comment' interview before being charged and remanded in custody.
Victim Impact
11Mr McLeod was conveyed to the Alfred Hospital and intubated for his safety due to his ceaseless vomiting. When he gained consciousness, he could not recall where he was or what had happened.
12A subsequent report from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine confirmed that Mr McLeod had sustained a severe traumatic brain injury that has the potential for significant long-term neurological complications. There was bleeding both within and around the brain, with a shift of the brain tissue downward. Multiple areas of the skull were fractured, and there was a spinal neck fracture.
13Mr McLeod also required an extended stay in the Intensive Care Unit at the Alfred Hospital, requiring care from a team of neurosurgeons, occupational therapists, speech therapists and physiotherapists. Dr Gaya of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine opined that Mr McLeod’s injuries were life threatening, substantial, and protracted.
14Up until December 2023, a period of some five to six months, Mr McLeod remained as an inpatient at the Alfred Hospital’s Acquired Brain Injury unit. It was noted that while he was residing here, he was unable to walk, fatigued easily and had some cognitive impairments such as short-term memory loss and difficulty maintaining concentration. Mr McLeod was also noted to be doubly incontinent.
15From early 2024, Mr McLeod has resided in a nursing home. Letters from one of Mr McLeod’s treating practitioners, Dr Severyn Praszkier dated 7 May 2024 and 16 May 2024, Exhibit 3 at your plea hearing, detail Mr McLeod’s progress. According to Dr Praszkier, Mr McLeod has a significant cognitive decline as a result of the traumatic brain injury sustained during the assault. He has suffered a significant decline in both his cognitive and physical function. He is no longer functioning as a normal 70 year old would. He is incontinent. He can walk with a frame but needs help, and he cannot be independent in any way. His speech is poor and he has great difficulty in communicating. He is not bed bound but does sit in a chair most of the time. According to Dr Praszkier, Mr McLeod has suffered a significant loss of his quality of life, and he has very little prospect of any recovery, and will live in residential care for the remainder of his life. The significant impacts of your offending upon Mr McLeod were further highlighted in the Victim Impact Statement from Mr McLeod’s Enduring Power of Attorney,
Ms Vivian Cook, dated 23 May 2024, Exhibit 4 at your plea hearing. Clearly,
Mr McLeod has required considerable assistance in daily activities, and according to Ms Cook he has lost a considerable amount of weight and now presents as isolated and alone, with Ms Cook having to travel in excess of three hours to visit Mr McLeod.16Your offending upon Mr McLeod has impacted him greatly. Virtually every facet of his life has been adversely affected. The impact upon Mr McLeod is appropriately described as catastrophic, and this very much impacts upon the sentence to be imposed.
Nature and gravity of your offending
17The gravity of the crime of recklessly causing serious injury is reflected in the statutory maximum penalty, 15 years’ imprisonment. Within the broad spectrum of cases involving this particular offence, I am satisfied that your conduct represents a serious example of the crime of recklessly causing serious injury and sits towards the higher end of seriousness for offences of this kind.
18In analysing the nature and gravity of the recklessly cause serious injury offence, I have had regard to the decision of Ashe v R [2010] VSCA 119, which refers to an assessment of the seriousness involving consideration of both the degree of probability that serious injury would result from your actions, and the degree of seriousness of the probable injury. In your case, your conduct is essentially reflective of a one punch assault. However, the punch was directed to a particularly vulnerable part of your victim’s body, the face. You struck Mr McLeod with sufficient force to cause him to fall and hit the pavement. Your victim, at age 70, was vulnerable in the circumstances. The consequences of one punch assaults are now well known in the community. A forceful punch to the head is in my view highly dangerous and a person delivering such a punch is taken to have foreseen a high probability of serious injury.[1] As has been made clear in the decision of Ashe, together with other decisions, the seriousness of the injury sustained is also a key consideration when analysing the nature and gravity of any particular instance of recklessly causing serious injury. In your case, the injuries sustained by Mr McLeod were life threatening, substantial, and protracted. As I have stated, your victim sustained severe traumatic brain injury as well as multiple skull fractures and a spinal neck fracture. He had an extended stay in intensive care at the Alfred Hospital, before a sustained stay as an inpatient at the Alfred Hospital’s Acquired Brain Injury Unit. He has sustained cognitive impairments. He has been unable to walk without assistance. He has sustained both urinary and bowel incontinence. He now resides in a nursing home. Collectively these injuries and consequences must be seen as extremely serious.
[1]DPP v Betrayhani 2019 VSCA 150 at Paragraph 44
19You engaged in an entirely unprovoked, unanticipated one punch assault on a
70 year old man walking along a concrete footpath. Irrespective of your views or concerns with regards to Mr McLeod’s behaviour with regards to children, there is no evidence before me to sustain those concerns, and in any event, vigilantism cannot be tolerated.20You were on bail at the time of this incident. According to the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea, at the time of this incident you were on bail for charges of affray and assault dating from 30 April 2023, less than two months prior to the current offending. According to the preliminary police brief with regards to this matter, tendered as part of a bundle of documents at your plea hearing and marked Exhibit 5, on the evening of 30 April 2023 you approached two victims whilst in possession of a broken glass bottle and threatened to use it, and grabbed one of the victims by the neck and held the broken bottle towards his neck before being stopped. You have subsequently been dealt with in relation to this conduct, receiving a sentence of two months’ imprisonment at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 17 May 2024, for charges of affray and unlawful assault. You are not to be doubly punished for this conduct, however, the fact that you engaged in a serious assault upon Mr McLeod within a short period of being bailed for other acts of violence is highly concerning, and enhances the nature and gravity of the offending for which you now fall to be sentenced, and your level of culpability for it.
Your level of culpability for the offending
21Shortly I will outline your personal circumstances, including your chronically disadvantaged upbringing. As conceded by the prosecution, your difficult childhood and history of head injuries, substance and alcohol abuse enlivens the Bugmy principles, and lowers to some degree your culpability for the offending. Indeed, your dysfunctional upbringing, tainted by violence, neglect, drug abuse and alcohol abuse is clearly related to your complex post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis. Having regard to your personal circumstances, and the reports of
Dr Fratti and Mr Cummins, I am satisfied that your difficult upbringing has contributed to the manner in which you have conducted yourself with regards to the current offending such that your moral culpability is reduced, notwithstanding your extensive criminal history. Putting it another way, I am satisfied that your current criminal behaviour is causally connected with the effects of dysfunction and trauma experienced during your developmental years, such as to reduce your level of culpability for the offending before me.22Furthermore, I am satisfied that your impaired mental functioning as set out in the reports of Mr Cummins and in particular Dr Fratti is also relevant to an assessment with regards to your moral culpability for the offending. According to Dr Fratti, your acquired brain injury impacts upon your decision-making ability in times of stress. Accordingly, I have concluded that your moral culpability is somewhat reduced with regards to the offending, in accordance with Verdins principle 1. For the sake of clarity, I note your narrative to Mr Cummins with regards to your apparently long-standing antipathy to paedophiles, and your concerns with regards to the asserted conduct of Mr McLeod in relation to your daughter. Whilst such sentiments are relevant with regards to some aspects of your psychological functioning in the view of Mr Cummins, and provides some context to your motivations for the current offending, they in no way reduce your culpability or provide any excuse for your serious offending conduct with regards to Mr McLeod.
Personal circumstances
23Your personal history and circumstances were set out in your counsel submissions dated 18 March 2024, Exhibit A, the psychological report by Mr Jeffrey Cummins dated 13 March 2024, Exhibit C, and the neuropsychological report by Dr Sarah Fratti dated 2 December 2023, Exhibit B.
24You are now aged 49. You are a Koori man, with your Aboriginality coming from your father’s side. As articulated by your counsel, your upbringing was chronically dysfunctional and riddled with physical abuse.
25You were raised in Melbourne in tumultuous and difficult circumstances. You report that your mother was a heroin user and died when you were just 12 years old. Your father was a violent alcoholic and subjected you to physical abuse. As such, your childhood was unstable with you moving in and out of foster care and hostels and being periodically homeless on the streets of St Kilda.
26You have reported a long history of homelessness which included rough sleeping, couch surfing, squatting and brief stays in crisis accommodation. You lived in Shepparton for several years where you stayed in a tent by the river.
27Your education was disjointed. You attended St Kilda and Bundoora Primary Schools and moved high schools three times after eventually ceasing your formal education in Year 10 after being expelled, according to you, because of 'fighting, alcohol and drugs'.
28Your work history has been quite limited. You reported to Dr Fratti that you have limited experience working as a cleaner, a security guard, a jackaroo, and a garbage collector. Dr Fratti noted that according to medical records, you have also worked illegally in the boxing industry. You went on to state that at the time of the current offending you were 'working as a pimp' on the streets in St Kilda. You have been the recipient of a Disability Support Pension since 2000.
29You have an extensive history of substance use, which includes alcohol, heroin, methamphetamine and cannabis. Concerningly, you reported commencing the use of alcohol and other substances from the age of nine to ten years old. You mentioned to Dr Fratti that you were born opioid dependent but no further information was provided on this matter.
30You reported consuming, at points throughout your life, between 10 to 12 beers and four to six litres of cask wine a day. Around the time of your offending, you reported engaging in weekend long binges involving 1.1 litres of Jack Daniels and methamphetamine. You admitted that four days prior to this offending, you had used alcohol, cannabis, methamphetamine, and heroin.
31You told Dr Fratti that you have nine children. You only see one of these children, seven year old Erin, whose mother you have reportedly been in an 'on again off again' relationship with for 17 years.
32Three of your children have passed away, with the most recent death occurring in 2014. You learned about this only two years ago when you made enquiries about getting in contact with your estranged children.
33You have an extensive, relevant and concerning criminal history, dating back to 1993, and you have over the years amassed many prior convictions both in Victoria and elsewhere. In particular, you have some 44 prior convictions for assaults between 1993 and 2022, where the victims have been unknown to you, and therefore could be described as random assaults. Contained in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea is a table setting out details with regards to your prior convictions for violence. You have received multiple gaol sentences for matters of violence, including causing injury and causing serious injury. On 15 August 2017, on appeal from the Magistrates’ Court, you received an aggregate sentence of three years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months, for offences which included two charges of recklessly causing injury. You subsequently received sentences of imprisonment for matters of violence in August 2021, December 2021 and November 2022. On 8 November 2022 you were sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for offences which included recklessly causing injury, with 80 days declared as presentence detention. Accordingly, you had only been in the community some six months since your last release from prison before committing the assault on Mr McLeod.
34Clearly, you have spent much of your adult life in prison. Indeed, according to your counsel since late 2014 you have only spent 43 months in the community. On multiple occasions you have breached community based dispositions. You have previously served three periods of parole, with two of those parole periods being breached either through non-compliance or reoffending. Clearly, previous court interventions have neither prevented re-offending nor deterred you from engaging in violent conduct. The sentencing purposes of specific deterrence and community protection therefore loom large in the sentencing exercise.
35You have reported a long history of repeated head injuries stemming from incidents of assault and street fighting. You recall being hit in the head with a shovel in 2008, and on another occasion being bludgeoned with a coffee cup. You have a prosthetic eye as a result of being assaulted with a curtain rod in 2010.
36Over the years, you have had substantial involvement with the public mental health services including six registrations at mental health services across Victoria. You also experienced several voluntary and involuntary admissions to inpatient units, for example, you were an involuntary patient at Werribee Mercy Hospital from
28 September 2020 to 8 October 2020.37You have received several mental health and other diagnoses over the years.
Dr Fratti in her report refers to previous diagnosis of depressive disorders, personality disorder unspecified, opioid dependency disorder, adjustment disorder, unspecified non-organic psychosis, and mental and behavioural disorder due to stimulant use – psychotic disorder. Dr Fratti states that the forensic psychologist Dr Cunningham in a report from 2017 further diagnosed you with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder stemming from a history of trauma, abandonment, homelessness and substance misuse. Dr Fratti herself confirms a diagnosis of a mild acquired brain injury, stemming from early onset heavy alcohol and polysubstance use, with plausible contribution to your cognitive deficits coming from your history of repeated head trauma over the years. According to Dr Fratti, as a result of your ABI, which is a chronic condition that would have been present at the time of your offending, your overall intellectual functioning is worse than 98% of your similar aged peers, and your condition means that you may exercise poor judgment, and you may be slow to respond to a stressful situation and come up with an alternative to develop an appropriate solution. In his recent psychological assessment, in addition to substance related disorders, Mr Cummins confirms the existence of multiple mental health conditions that pre-date your current offending, including complex post-traumatic stress disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder, with some indicia of paranoid personality disorder.
Sentencing factors
38In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I am required to have regard to various factors. I have already referred to some of them: the maximum penalties for the offence of recklessly causing serious injury and committing an indictable offence on bail, the nature and gravity of your offending, its impact upon your victims, your level of responsibility for it, and your personal circumstances. In addition to these factors, there are a number of other mitigatory factors relevant to the sentence I will impose.
39As conceded by the prosecution, you pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, which warrants a considerable sentencing discount. Through your early plea of guilty, contested proceedings with the associated delays and costs have been avoided. Further to this, your victim has avoided needing to provide evidence in court and has avoided the increased stress which he is already under as a result of this offending.
40Further, I am satisfied that your early plea of guilty demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility and your willingness to facilitate the course of justice. You acknowledged to forensic psychologist, Jeffrey Cummins, when he assessed you on 26 February 2024 that you deserved to be in custody for assaulting the victim.[2] Your acceptance of responsibility was further highlighted in your meaningful participation in the Koori Court sentencing conversation, the details of which I will soon elaborate upon. In that conversation with an Aboriginal elder, you said that you were not proud of yourself for your offending behaviour in relation to
Mr McLeod.[2]Paragraph 41
41The question of whether your acceptance of responsibility extends to meaningful remorse, which would warrant a further mitigatory allowance on sentencing, is a vexed one. At the sentencing conversation on 25 March 2024, you referred to the letter of apology dated 16 February 2024, tendered on your behalf and marked Exhibit D. That letter, which you indicated was written by a friend in custody but contains your words, clearly contains articulations of remorse to your victim,
Mr McLeod. However, that letter also contained references to your understanding of what the victim had done to others in the past. When you were assessed by clinical neuropsychologist, Dr Sara Fratti, a few months prior to your apology letter, on 18 November 2023, you referred to assaulting Mr McLeod on the basis of your belief that he was renowned paedophile and that he deserved punishment due to being a paedophile and being a threat to your daughter. Unsurprisingly, Dr Fratti referred to you expressing a lack of remorse for the offending. Concerningly, just 10 days after your apology letter, when you were assessed by clinical and forensic psychologist, Jeffrey Cummins, on 26 February 2024, you expressed similar disparaging sentiments towards Mr McLeod. According to Mr Cummins, 'he acknowledged he should not have assaulted Mr McLeod, although he simultaneously did not apologise for his offending and he did not express remorse.'[3][3]Paragraph 39
42Further complicating this picture are the established cognitive difficulties from which you suffer, including importantly an acquired brain injury with associated diminished insight and impaired decision-making. Notwithstanding these matters, it is very concerning that as recently as February this year, you were externalising blame and denigrating your victim. In written submissions, the prosecution accepted that you had demonstrated some remorse through your letter of apology, though the mitigating effect was limited due to your ongoing persecutory and paranoid beliefs in relation to Mr McLeod. In all the circumstances, only a very modest mitigatory allowance is warranted on the issue of remorse, for the reasons I have explained.
43I return now to the issue of your participation in the Koori Court sentencing conversation on 25 March 2024, when you formally entered your pleas of guilty to these charges. This was something that you did not need to do, and your voluntary participation in the sentencing conversation stands to your credit. Particularly given your cognitive difficulties, I am satisfied that you engaged meaningfully with the participants in that conversation, and you took responsibility for your offending in what must have been a confronting conversation. In that conversation, you displayed some emotion when discussing your young daughter, Erin, and the reality that you will be unable to watch over her while you are incarcerated. Clearly, this relationship is of great importance to you, and you are affected by not hearing from her despite writing letters to her whilst you have been incarcerated. Participation in a sentencing conversation is more burdensome than appearing at a traditional plea hearing, warranting a mitigatory sentencing allowance in your favour.
44Furthermore, on a related issue, your Aboriginality represents a significant matter in the sentencing exercise. You are a 49-year-old Aboriginal man with an extremely difficult history, which is in some ways emblematic of the catastrophic impacts of intergenerational trauma brought about by colonisation which has wreaked havoc on the Aboriginal community, with its effects inexorably linked to the over-representation of Aboriginal people in custody. As has been stated in the Court of Appeal in this State, courts have a duty to be conscious of the need to avoid compounding these disproportionate incarceration rates, unless there is a good cause to do so.[4] Within the confines of orthodox sentencing practices, I am of course acutely aware of the consequences of imposing a custodial sentence upon an Aboriginal offender.
[4]Ha (a pseudonym) v R [2021] VSCA 64, 59.
45I turn now to the difficulties associated with your time in custody and its impact on the sentencing process. At your plea hearing I was informed and accept that your prosthetic eye, resulting from being assaulted with a curtain rod in 2010, was displaced upon your arrest for this matter, and you have spent the entirety of your time in custody in relation to this matter without it. You have had numerous eye infections as a result, and you have relied on a friend in custody to assist you in washing out the eye socket. This has no doubt made your time in custody particularly arduous, warranting a mitigatory allowance. You apparently had an appointment with an optometrist with regards to remedial interventions in May 2024. According to neuropsychologist, Dr Fratti, you appear to have adapted well to life in prison, given its structured environment, and your ABI-related cognitive weaknesses are not expected to deteriorate as a result of being imprisoned. However, according to Dr Fratti, your mental health will likely deteriorate if not closely monitored. It is anticipated that you will experience greater difficulties in prison than the average person. You are not apparently receiving regular mental health reviews within the prison system and your symptoms are not being treated with psychoactive medications.[5] In all the circumstances, I am prepared to make a mitigatory allowance due to the impact of the custodial environment on your mental health, pursuant to Verdins principle 5. However, I am not satisfied to the requisite level that there is a serious risk that your conditions would deteriorate in the custodial setting, which would otherwise warrant a mitigatory allowance pursuant to Verdins principle 6.
[5]Paragraph 90
46In all the circumstances and having regard in particular to your extensive and concerning criminal history in combination with the nature of the current offending, I agree with Mr Cummins that your long-term prospects for rehabilitation must be seen as very guarded.[6] You are at risk of being institutionalised in the custodial setting. Whilst pursuant to the Verdins principles, the application of the sentencing purpose of specific deterrence must be moderated in your case by virtue of your acquired brain injury and associated cognitive difficulties, the fact remains that previous sentences, including sentences of imprisonment, have not deterred you from engaging in even more serious acts of violence. Previous rehabilitative interventions have not succeeded in breaking your concerning cycle of violent offending. Again, acknowledging your cognitive difficulties, you appear to still harbour concerning attitudes towards your victim. Again acknowledging that pursuant to the Verdins principles, general deterrence must also be sensibly moderated given your level of mental impairment, there is nevertheless a need for any sentence I impose to appropriately deter others from engaging in such serious criminality. Given the breadth and nature of your criminal history and offending, there is a need for community protection to feature in the sentencing exercise.
[6]Paragraph 63
47In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I have had regard to current sentencing practices for offences of this nature, noting that previous sentences are not binding precedents, but are merely historical statements of what has happened in the past, and current sentencing practices represent just one of the relevant sentencing factors to be considered.[7] Nevertheless, I have carefully considered the authorities referred to by the prosecution and some authorities referred to by your counsel, largely on matters of principle.[8] As I indicated in oral submissions, whilst those authorities have been of some assistance on the topic of current sentencing practices, those authorities referred to by the prosecution in particular involved offenders who were considerably younger than you, and in all the circumstances, I have formed the view that your case is more serious.
[7]DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) 92017) 262 CLR 428
[8]Mazzonetto v The Queen [2022] VSCA 153 and McLean v The King [2023] VSCA 6
Sentence to be imposed
48In all the circumstances, I have concluded, consistent with the parsimony principle, that nothing less than a sentence of imprisonment of some length is warranted.
49Mr Parsons, I now come to the moment where I pass sentence on you and indicate the penalties to be imposed.
50On the charge of recklessly causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to six years and nine months’ imprisonment. In relation to the charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, you are convicted and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. This sentence is to be served concurrently with the other sentence imposed this day.
51I order that you serve a period of four years and 10 months' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
52Pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare a period of 292 days has been served by way of pre-sentence detention, and I order that this period be administratively deducted from your sentence.
53Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty at trial, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and nine months.
54Finally, I will make the Disposal Order sought by the prosecution with regards to the CCTV footage and medical documents, this application not being opposed by you.
55Mr Marshall, firstly, any ambiguities or issues with regards to the sentence? Have I missed anything?
56MR MARSHALL: No, Your Honour.
57HIS HONOUR: Thanks. Mr Mitchell, same question to you?
58MR MITCHELL: No, Your Honour.
59HIS HONOUR: Yes. Mr Mitchell, I'll leave the link open for a short period of time, once I leave the Bench, to allow you some privacy to speak with your client, to ensure that he understands what the sentence I have just announced is.
60MR MITCHELL: Thank you, Your Honour.
61HIS HONOUR: Adjourn the court, please.
- - ----
7
0