Director of Public Prosecutions v Pascal
[2023] VCC 1582
•5 September 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case Nos. CR-22-00992
and CR-22-00993
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MALCOLM MICHAEL PASCAL BLAISE PASCAL |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE MARICH | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 August 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 5 September 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Pascal and Anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1582 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:SENTENCE – CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – charges of causing serious injury recklessly, causing injury recklessly, intentionally causing injury, theft.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Sentence: Malcolm Pascal – Total effective sentence of 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months imprisonment; 214 days pre-sentence detention declared as already served under this sentence; Blaise Pascal – combination sentence of 208 days imprisonment followed by a 2 years Community Correction Order with conditions; 208 days pre-sentence detention declared as already served under this sentence.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the DPP Mr D Gray Office of Public Prosecutions
For Blaise Pascal Mr M Sturges Angus Cameron Lawyers
For Malcolm Pascal Mr J. Desmond Papa Hughes Lawyers
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
1Malcolm Pascal, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing one charge of causing serious injury recklessly, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment; one charge of causing injury recklessly, which carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment; and one charge of theft, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
2Blaise Pascal, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing one charge of intentionally causing injury, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
3The circumstances in which you each came to commit those offences are set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening on Sentence Indication dated 25 July 2023, which was adopted as the Prosecution Opening on Plea for the purpose of this hearing and included within Exhibit A is the Plea Annexure dated 29 August 2023. The prosecution has also relied on mobile phone footage (Exhibit B), the Victim Impact Statement of Richard Lee-Porcher dated 22 August 2023 (Exhibit C), the Victim Impact Statement of Stuart Sheppard dated 28 August 2023 (Exhibit D), and the Victim Impact Statement of Herman Sibbel dated 24 August 2023 (Exhibit E).
4Since the conclusion of the plea in mitigation of penalty, I have received the outcome of the assessment of you, Mr Blaise Pascal, for your suitability for a Community Correction Order, with attached Forensicare mental health advice and response service report, which I now receive and mark as Exhibit F.
5In addition to matters developed in oral argument, Malcolm Pascal, your counsel relied on Defence Sentencing Indication submissions dated 3 August 2023 (Exhibit 1), a psychiatric report of Dr Lester Walton dated 16 May 2023 (Exhibit 2), and a reference letter of Tracey McMahon dated 2 August 2023 (Exhibit 3).
6Blaise Pascal, your counsel relied on sentencing indication submissions dated 7 August 2023 (Exhibit 4), a letter of support from Dr Quinn, general practitioner, dated 1 August 2023 (Exhibit 5), psychological report of Dr Aaron Cunningham dated 7 August 2023 (Exhibit 6), and a bundle of references (Exhibit 7).
7I have had careful regard to all exhibited documents, as well as to the matters addressed in the oral plea in mitigation of penalty in determining the appropriate sentences in this case and the reasons for those sentences.
Circumstances of your offending
8You are brothers and, at the time of the offending on 25 February 2021, you were both living at Blaise Pascal's (former) home address in Watts Lane, Cottles Bridge. Mr Lee-Porcher lived at an address nearby, as did Stuart Sheppard. These gentlemen are the victims of your offending. Another neighbour, Herman Sibbel, also lived nearby.
9Mr Lee-Porcher has been your neighbour, Blaise Pascal, for years. I understand that there has been animosity between you. At approximately 7.20 pm on 25 February 2021, Mr Lee-Porcher was taking his bin out. Your son, Esprit Pascal, and you, Malcolm Pascal, went to put the bins out, using your white Falcon utility, Malcolm Pascal. Mr Lee-Porcher recognised Esprit, but did not recognise you, Malcolm Pascal.
10A confrontation and physical altercation occurred between Mr Lee-Porcher and you, Malcolm Pascal. The prosecution has accepted that it is unclear how that altercation commenced and who was the instigator and I therefore make no finding on this aspect.
11Ultimately, Mr Lee-Porcher and you, Malcolm Pascal, ended up rolling down an embankment near a cyclone fence approximately 12 metres away. As Mr Lee‑Porcher was getting up, he lost his balance and, in doing so, kneed you, Malcolm Pascal, to the head accidentally and then kneed you again deliberately at a point in time after you had become unconscious. He then observed that you, Malcolm Pascal, were in an altered state of consciousness and were struggling to breathe.
12Mr Lee-Porcher then made a Triple 0 call for assistance after having walked up the embankment towards his vehicle to retrieve his phone. As he did so, he observed Mr Sheppard, a qualified MICA paramedic, nearby. Mr Lee-Porcher told Mr Sheppard 'he just attacked me', and asked him to assist you, Malcolm Pascal.
13Esprit Pascal began filming the incident on his mobile phone (Exhibit B), and this video shows you, Malcolm Pascal, still unconscious lying on the ground. Esprit used words signalling that Mr Lee-Porcher had just knocked you, Malcolm Pascal, out. Mr Lee-Porcher called emergency services and told the operator “he attacked me. I pushed him downhill”.
14Mr Sheppard attended to you, Malcolm Pascal, and by this time you were responsive. Esprit called you, Blaise Pascal.
15Mr Sibbel arrived while you, Malcolm Pascal, were still on the ground. At this point you, Malcolm Pascal, rose to your feet and approached Mr Lee-Porcher, who was standing stationary by his car, and tried to throw punches.
16Blaise Pascal, you then arrived at the scene in a red Mitsubishi ASX wagon. Mr Lee-Porcher turned his attention to you, Blaise Pascal, and you, Malcolm Pascal, hit or punched Mr Lee‑Porcher on the back of the head, which is an uncharged act. You, Blaise Pascal, got out of your car, stood in front of Mr Lee‑Porcher and assaulted him to the right eye with a closed right fist, which is also an uncharged act.
17Mr Lee-Porcher then grabbed you, Blaise Pascal, in a bear hug, and the two of you then also fell down the embankment, knocking over rubbish bins that had been placed out for collection.
18You then administered numerous kicks and punches to the body and face of Mr Lee‑Porcher, who remained on the ground. Blaise Pascal, this is part of the offending referable to your charge of intentionally causing injury.
19Malcolm Pascal, you then picked up pieces of timber and used them to hit Mr Lee‑Porcher to the head and chest multiple times while he remained on the ground. You then picked up a bottle and broke it over the back of Mr Lee-Porcher's head. You then picked up a bottle which had been in the rubbish bin which had fallen over, and sliced the right side of Mr Lee-Porcher's face with the remnants of that bottle. Mr Lee-Porcher tried to cover his head and started bleeding. These are the actions referable to your charge, Malcolm Pascal, of causing serious injury recklessly, and I will return to the extent of the serious injury caused in a moment.
20Mr Sheppard attempted to separate you, Malcolm Pascal, and Mr Lee-Porcher. While doing so, he was hit and pushed and, as a result, dislocated his shoulder. This is the conduct referable to your Charge 2, Malcolm Pascal, of recklessly causing injury.
21Mr Sheppard then contacted emergency services and told the operator “a guy's been stabbed”, and he then contacted emergency services again within a minute, and he can be heard saying “Leave me alone. My shoulder's dislocated, Blaise”.
22During this conversation you, Blaise Pascal, said to Mr Sheppard “I will get you” and you ran your fingers across your throat.
23Mr Lee-Porcher crawled on his hands and knees towards his vehicle, which was parked near the bins, and used the bulbar to pull himself up. As he did so you, Blaise Pascal, punched him in the face. Whilst Mr Lee-Porcher was on the ground, the two of you kicked him multiple times around his injured eye region, to the side of his head. This conduct is also referable to your charge of intentionally causing injury, Blaise Pascal, and your charge of recklessly causing serious injury, Malcolm Pascal.
24You, Malcolm Pascal, then removed Mr Lee‑ Porcher's iPhone from the bonnet of your car and threw the phone into the tray of your own utility. Mr Lee‑Porcher asked you to return the phone, but you refused. This is the conduct referable to your Charge 3, Malcolm Pascal, of theft. You each then left the scene by car.
Investigation and interviews
25Police members and Ambulance Victoria paramedics arrived on the scene, and police identified blood stains on the ground and wheelie bins, a piece of glass with blood stains on the ground and broken pieces of a Hahn beer bottle on the ground. Police attended at your shared address, and both of you were arrested. A black iPhone matching the description of Mr Lee-Porcher's phone was located by police on a bed next to you, Malcolm Pascal. Bloodstained clothing was also located by police in the house and in a utility parked outside the address.
26Blaise Pascal, you were conveyed to Heidelberg police station and were interviewed. You told police that you had moved to Cottles Bridge six years' earlier and met all the neighbours, and there had been acrimony between your son, Esprit, and the other children, which led to acrimony with a neighbour. There had been an earlier incident where “Richard” (that is, the first name for Mr Lee‑Porcher) had been violent towards you. You said that you had attended the scene when your son, Esprit, called you, and you drove down and a man attacked you, as he did the original time, and you defended yourself. You accepted punching “Richard”, and picking up a hammer from the back of the Ute.
27You told police you did not recall 'Richard' being on the ground at any stage, and did not know if you kicked him while he was on the ground. You denied touching him with a log. You did not know if Malcolm Pascal picked up a beer bottle, and all your actions were in self-defence.
28Malcolm Pascal, you participated in an interview with police, and you told them that you were putting out the bin at the intersection of Watts Lane when you heard someone yell obscenities about your brother. Next, you remember waking up in an ambulance. You told police you did not know how you got knocked out, and you denied punching or hitting anyone.
29On 11 March 2021, police executed a search warrant at your address in Watts Lane, Cottles Bridge, and located Mr Lee-Porcher's mobile phone within a wardrobe, which I understand to have been recovered.
Effect on the victims
30Mr Lee‑Porcher was extensively and seriously injured in the incident, and was conveyed to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. On initial examination, he was noted to have sustained the following injuries:
(a) multiple incisional wounds to face and head;
(b) 3 centimetre incision left vertex (top of head);
(c) 12 centimetre incision partially severing right ear;
(d) 2-3 centimetre incision to right lower eye lid extending to bridge of nose;
(e) haematomas to both zygomas (cheekbones);
(f) bilateral periorbital haematomas (collection of blood/bruising around both eyes);
(g) small subconjunctival haemorrhage to right eye toward the nose;
(h) bruising to right and left anterior chest wall; and
(i) bruising right iliac fossa (lower abdomen on right).
31He was estimated to have lost 300 millilitres of blood and he underwent surgical repair for his facial wound, and a repeat CT brain scan showed a subdural collection of blood, that is bleeding within the brain. He spent a total of eight days in hospital.
32I understand that as one result of the serious injury you caused him, Malcolm Pascal, he sustained a facial injury, that is a large disfiguring injury to the side of his face due to sharp force (incisional) trauma, which has led to a permanent scar.
33He also sustained orbital fractures caused by blunt trauma to the front of his eyes, that is to the inferior wall, being the bone under his eye. Tissue and muscle from around the eye has prolapsed and there is a risk of the muscle becoming entrapped, causing vision impairment. The fractures required repair by specialist surgeon, and the plates used for repair will remain permanently in his orbital bones. He also received chest injuries, that is rib fractures consistent with blunt force impact to the chest wall (blows, kicks or other impacts). He sustained concussion, which improved in hospital.
34His injuries were medically serious.
35Mr Lee-Porcher has made statements to police indicating slow but sustained recovery to his injuries and, on 12 March 2021, he had surgery at the Royal Melbourne Hospital on both his eye sockets, where surgeons inserted titanium plates to repair the orbital flaws and ensure that his eyes stopped drooping.
36He also sustained a fractured index finger and a hairline fracture of his right wrist, requiring plaster.
37He started seeing a psychologist in March 2021, due to nightmares and flashbacks.
38Fortunately, his eyes appear to have stabilised since the initial injury, though he still requires counselling and his injuries have left him anxious, easily fatigued and lacking in confidence. They have also impacted on his capacity to work.
39By your plea, Malcolm Pascal, you admit that you caused him serious injury, foreseeing the probability of that outcome. By your plea, Blaise Pascal, you admit causing him injury, intending to do so.
40Mr Sheppard sustained a left shoulder anterior dislocation as a result of the injury that you caused, Malcolm Pascal, leaving him unable to work for two weeks. By your plea, Malcolm Pascal, you admit that you caused him injury, foreseeing the probability of that outcome.
41I have received three Victim Impact Statements in this matter, which I have read and considered carefully. Mr Lee-Porcher read his statement aloud and spoke extensively and eloquently about the physical and psychological effects of his serious injury, and the injury that you caused, Blaise Pascal, which have left him feeling unsafe in his home. They have also interfered with his ability to undertake his volunteer work.
42Likewise, Mr Sheppard also told me of the major impact of this event on him and his family, which has left him with flashbacks, nightmares, a feeling of guilt, and the understandable need for counselling.
43His shoulder dislocation led to ongoing pain in his left shoulder, which has restricted his ability to complete simple daily tasks. Initially, he was treated at the hospital emergency department, and he has since required care from his general practitioner and physiotherapy for the dislocation.
Plea of guilty and timing, remorse
44Your matters proceeded through the committal stream of the Magistrates' Court, with witnesses cross-examined, and you were committed for trial.
45Your matters resolved in the weeks prior to the scheduled trial listing in late August 2023, following my indication as to the sentences I would impose if you pleaded guilty to the preceding charges.
46I accept and take into account in respect of each of you in mitigation of penalty that these pleas of guilty were entered, late, but prior to the court reaching your trial listing, and that you have saved the court, the witnesses and the community, the time and expense of complicated and arduous trials, involving the further cross-examination of witnesses. Moreover, I consider that each of your pleas is accompanied by remorse and some insight. I mitigate the sentences that I must impose on each of you on these bases.
Personal circumstances
47Malcolm Pascal, you are now 49 years of age and at the time of your offending you were 46. You have an older brother, your co-accused Blaise Pascal, and two older sisters. I understand that your father was an alcohol-abusing man capable of extensive and significant violence, and he died in 2010. Your mother has also unfortunately passed away.
48You have an 11 year old son and a 10 year old daughter to a relationship that ended in 2016.
49You were educated to Year 9 at Salesian College until you were expelled, and then you attended Keon Park College for a brief time until you left school and worked variously as a gardener, landscaper, arborist, and you ran your own cleaning business for 25 years.
50You were remanded into custody as a result of this offending and approximately 215 days were spent in custody before you were granted bail. This time was spent productively in courses and by you creating a men's group for other prisoners. Unfortunately, you have not worked since you were released from your time on remand.
51I have the benefit of a psychiatric report prepared by Dr Lester Walton, consultant psychiatrist, who has opined that as a result of sustaining blows to your head shortly prior to your offending, it is highly likely that you would have had some persisting obtunding of consciousness to a point where your capacity properly to exercise social judgement may well have been significantly impaired. Dr Walton does not consider this to be the sole explanation of your misconduct, but considers it a probable significant contributor.
52You have appeared before the court on approximately 13 occasions prior to committing these offences.
53In October 1996, you received a suspended sentence for property offending and failing to answer bail. In September 1998, you appeared before the court on charges including unlawful assault, assault with weapon, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, driving offences, and failing to answer bail. You were fined with conviction. Property offences followed in February 2001, and you were placed on a Community-Based Order.
54In 2003, you were convicted of offences of breaching an intervention order and using telecommunication service to harass, and were convicted and fined. Driving offences followed in 2005, for which you received a suspended sentence, and in February 2010, for which you received a period of immediate custody, which was varied on appeal. In January 2011, you were fined without conviction for offences including unlawful assault. In March 2016, you were convicted and placed on a combination sentence involving immediate custody and a Community Correction Order for offences including firearms offences and threat to inflict serious injury.
55Intervention Order breaches followed in February 2019, and you were placed on a Community Correction Order. Each of the Community Correction Orders were subsequently breached. You were also convicted on further driving offences in May 2019 and were sentenced to immediate custody in November 2019 for a series of Family Violence Intervention Order offences, and an offence of making a threat to kill.
56I have received a reference from a close friend who speaks to some of your better qualities, including your appreciation of your children, and that you are a loving and supportive friend with a goofy side.
57Blaise Pascal, you were 53 at the time of your offending and are now 55. You were born in Zimbabwe and your family migrated to Australia prior to the birth of your younger brother, Malcolm. You have described your parents as hardworking though, like your brother, you characterise your father as being “a harsh man” to you and your siblings. You have a lot of respect for your mother, and you consider her to have been very nurturing.
58Unfortunately, your mother passed away while you were on remand in relation to these offences.
59You completed Year 11 at secondary school and, unfortunately, I was told that you were racially vilified as a child, and you left school due to racial discrimination. You then worked in retail and in factory employment, and you declined the offer of an electrical apprenticeship offered by your father. You managed a Telstra dealership. You built a mobile food van and operated that business for 10 years, and operated a commercial cleaning business for 25 years. At its peak, you managed approximately 30 staff.
60Following being charged with this offence, you lost your working with children check, and I understand you could no longer operate your business, which has caused you financial hardship.
61You have three children: a 16 year old and twins aged 13, but have unfortunately separated from your partner of over 20 years recently in the context of the stress of finances and pending the resolution of the charges.
62Your family currently live at the Cottles Bridge address which I have referred to in the context of your offending. You live with your brother in a unit in Balwyn.
63You were remanded into custody as a result of this offending and 208 days were spent in custody before you were granted bail. This charge, and your time on remand, have weighed heavily upon you. Whilst you had no drug or alcohol issues prior to this event, you started drinking up to half a slab of beer per night once you were bailed for this offence, and you have abused alcohol to cope with the stresses of the court proceeding.
64To your credit, you have sought help for your mental health from your general practitioner and have been placed on a regime of medication including an antidepressant, an antipsychotic, and medication for your anxiety. Dr Aaron Cunningham, psychologist, has assessed your psychological presentation and has provided me with a report for the purpose of this hearing. In Dr Cunningham's view, you meet the DSM-V criteria for an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression, as you have experienced significant symptoms of depression and anxiety stemming from your charges and your fear of further imprisonment. This is in the context of your lost employment and relationship occasioned by the charge, which aggravated your symptoms of depression and anxiety.
65In Dr Cunningham's view, you would benefit from a disposition facilitating your rehabilitation, and there is a concern that imprisonment would be another stressor that further aggravates your symptoms of anxiety and depression.
66Your counsel fairly conceded that these circumstances do not precipitate the application of Verdins’ principles 5 and 6, though I do take them into account carefully in the context of your response to the charges.
67Dr Cunningham opines that you are at moderate risk of future violent offending.
68You have appeared before the court on five occasions prior to this offending, including appearances in 1989 and 1990 for charges of criminal damage, both of which were dealt with via the imposition of a Good Behaviour Bond, offending in 2002 relating to you knowingly obtaining what I infer to be a Centrelink payment only payable in part, for which you were convicted and fined. An appearance in February 2017 relating to your contravention of a Family Violence Interim Intervention Order, which resulted in a fine without conviction, and you appeared before the court in July 2017 on charges of intentionally damage property, unlawful assault and unlicensed driving, for which you were fined with conviction. Your offending represents a dramatic escalation of any prior offending, and the time that you spent on remand was your first period of imprisonment, which I trust and infer has been of significant salutary effect upon you.
69I have received a number of character references from persons close to you, and they have told me that you are a loving, generous and kind-hearted individual, family-focused, and generally caring of others.
70Following my sentence indication and the plea in mitigation of penalty, I had you, Blaise Pascal, assessed for your suitability for a Community Correction Order with appropriately tailored conditions. You were assessed as suitable for this order and I understand you are willing to engage in the order. I was reminded by the author of the assessment that you currently have an infection in your arm that has required multiple surgeries, along with a dislocated clavicle received in the incident that would inhibit your ability to complete unpaid community work. However, I have been told that the service can allocate an appropriate community worksite to allow you to undertake work, which will not have a negative effect on your health.
71Lydia Williams, Senior Clinician of Forensicare mental health and advice response service, assessed you as part of that Office of Corrections assessment, and noted there is no evidence of formal thought disorder in your case, no experience of psychotic phenomena, magical beliefs, delusional thinking and/or paranoid ideation and, on assessment, there is no evidence of aggression, irritability and/or hostility.
72To Ms Williams, you present with a moderate mental health impairment, and she also considers that you would benefit from psychological interventions to assist in the management of your emotions, thoughts and behaviours, whilst developing better coping mechanisms.
Objective gravity of your offending; moral culpability
73Malcolm Pascal, I accept without any hesitation the prosecution characterisation of the offending the subject of your first two charges as objectively serious. I understand the context of your offending as involving a spontaneous scuffle between yourself and Mr Lee-Porcher that resulted in your injury, the fact that when you woke from unconsciousness, that you probably remained concussed, that you felt provoked, and that your actions may have represented a serious escalation of how you might normally conduct yourself. These aspects of your case moderate your moral culpability, which still remains considerable given your infliction of serious injury to your first victim, and injury to your second with foresight of the probability of your actions.
74Your acts of retaliation to the indignity and harm that you had experienced were excessive and gratuitous. You used pieces of timber and ultimately a bottle that you found at the location as weapons, to seriously injure Mr Lee-Porcher, you were in company with your brother, and your violence towards Mr Lee‑Porcher continued after he had become incapacitated. You then injured Mr Sheppard, who was trying to assist at the scene.
75You have appeared before the court on earlier occasions for offences of violence and control, but this represents a significant escalation of earlier offending.
76Blaise Pascal, your offending occurred against a background of animosity with Mr Lee-Porcher. I appreciate that you were concerned for your initially unconscious brother when you became involved in attacking Mr Lee-Porcher. However, you injured him in company, and your attack continued after he had become incapacitated. This offending is not in your character.
Sentencing principles; current sentencing practices; sentencing submissions
77I must take into account the purposes for which sentence must be imposed, including the need for general deterrence, and also in my view the need to specifically deter each of you from other similar behaviour.
78In respect of each of you, I am prepared to infer that your offending was situational and was linked to the neighbourhood acrimony, and I am prepared to infer that your prospects for rehabilitation are good, given that the sentences I must impose will be of significant salutary effect on each of you.
79The sentences that I will impose will punish you and denounce your behaviour, and provide for community protection.
80I have had the benefit of a number of comparative sentences helpfully provided by the learned prosecutor in this case, although it can be noted, as is often the case, that none is close in similarity to your offending. Malcolm Pascal, I have been mindful of the totality principles of sentencing in imposing a total effective sentence in your case.
81As I have mentioned, your pleas of guilty were entered at a time when the court system in Victoria was experiencing significant impediments as a result of the unfortunate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a significant utilitarian benefit in you entering pleas of guilty to the preceding charges.[1]
[1]Worboyes v R [2020] VSCA 169
Sentence
82Malcolm Pascal, I now pass the following sentences upon you. On Charge 1, of recklessly causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to two years and nine months' imprisonment. On Charge 2, of recklessly causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, three months of which I order be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1. On Charge 3, of theft, you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment, to be served wholly concurrently. This is a total effective sentence of three years imprisonment, and I order that you serve one year and 10 months before parole eligibility.
83Blaise Pascal, on your charge of intentionally causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to a combination of 208 days' imprisonment to be followed by a community corrections order - and sir, I need you to listen carefully because I need to take your consent, your agreement to participate in this part of the order. The community corrections order will run for a period of two years from today, with conditions that you be supervised by the Office of Corrections, that you undertake 150 hours' of community work, and that you undergo assessment and treatment for your mental health. I order that all hours spent participating in rehabilitation will be credited towards your unpaid community work. Are you prepared to enter into that community corrections order sir? Thank you very much.
84Paperwork will be provided to you explaining all of the conditions you will be obliged to attend at the Office of Corrections within two business days from today. If you breach the order in any way, then you will be brought back before me and I will have the unhappy responsibility to resentence you for this offence, as well as for breaching the community corrections order.
85Were it not for your pleas of guilty in this case, had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty following trial, I would have imposed sentences of three years and nine months imprisonment with parole eligibility upon you, Malcolm Pascal, and 18 months imprisonment upon you, Blaise Pascal.
86In relation to Malcolm Pascal, I confirm that I will make an order for pre-sentence detention reckoned as 214 days excluding today. Was that agreed?
87In relation to Blaise Pascal, I make an order reckoning 208 days pre-sentence detention.
And I will make it clear on my order, in relation to Blaise Pascal, that there is no further sentence of imprisonment to be served under the custodial portion of his sentence. In other words, his community corrections order starts today.
88Any other ancillary orders in the circumstances of the case?
89MR GRAY: No, Your Honour.
90COUNSEL: No, thank you, Your Honour.
91HER HONOUR: We will adjourn sine die.
- - -
0