Director of Public Prosecutions v Perriman

[2018] VCC 1153

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 17-00880

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MATTHEW PERRIMAN

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE HARBISON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 July 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 July 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Perriman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VCC 1153

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject: using a carriage service to groom
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Accused	Mr R Edney
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms K Hawker

HER HONOUR:

1Matthew Perriman, you have pleaded guilty before me to two charges of using a carriage service to groom a person under the age of 16 years.

2The charges on the indictment are in reverse chronological order, so the first charge relates to the period between 17 June 2014 and 30 November 2015.  It is a charge that you, being at least 18 years of age (and at that time, I interpolate, approximately 29 to 30 years of age), did use a carriage service to communicate to an undercover police operative who you believed was someone under the age of 16 years with the intention of making it easier to groom the recipient to engage in sexual activity with yourself.

3The second charge is a charge that during an earlier period - and that is, between 6 December 2013 and 6 May 2014, so concluding about a month before you commenced the offending detailed in the first charge - you used a carriage service to communicate with your victim, , who was at that time under the age of 16 years and in fact was between 12 to 13 years, with the intention of making it easier to groom her to engage in sexual activity with you.  At the time of this second offence, you were approximately 28 years of age.

4Each of those charges are offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.  The maximum penalty for each one of those offences is imprisonment for a period of 12 years.  So Mr Perriman, those are both extremely serious offences.

5Each of those charges was put forward on this plea as what is called a "rolled-up count."  This means that each charge encompasses instances of separate criminal activity which could have been separately charged, and if that had been done, then you would have been facing more than the two charges for which I am to sentence you today.  So the discrete instances of criminal activity are encompassed within each charge for convenience, and I sentence you in relation to each one of those rolled-up charges.

6The matter first came before me for plea on 4 April 2018, and there was some argument at that time as to how the first charge should be appropriately characterised.  An issue was raised as to whether, in contacting the police operative in the manner that I have described, you believed that you were making contact with only one victim, or whether you believed you were making contact with a separate victim in relation to the November 2015 contact.

7You in fact contacted the same police officer on that occasion - the police officer, using the same alias.  But you used a different alias for yourself.  The question that troubled the court at the earlier plea hearing on 4 April was whether this contact in November 2015 represented your attempt to contact a completely different person and if so, whether that made the offending in the first charge more serious.

8Had that matter remained a live issue, then it would have been necessary for me to hear evidence about that and make a determination of fact on that submission before I was able to proceed to sentence you.  So the matter was therefore adjourned to 17 July to allow the parties the opportunity to consider this matter, and in particular, to consider whether the first charge was duplicitous.

9At the commencement of the adjourned plea hearing, the prosecutor advised me that the prosecutor did not wish to pursue this issue.  The prosecutor was satisfied that there was no issue of duplicity in Charge 1 because the charge was dealt with on a plea indictment rather than trial, and the prosecutor submitted that it was not necessary for me to pursue this matter any further in sentencing you today.

10This was on the basis that the charge was already a rolled-up count, which meant that it was already more serious offending than would have occurred had the charge represented only a single instance.  I was asked to sentence on the first charge only on the basis that it was more serious than if it had represented one contact only with the police operative, and to disregard any query regarding whether, in that last contact in November 2015, you expected that you were contacting a separate child.  This course was agreed to by your counsel and I therefore sentence you on Charge 1 on that agreed basis.

11So in sentencing you today, I have approached each of the charges as representing a serious example of the offence charged by reason of the fact that they are presented to me as rolled-up counts.

12I have not formed a view that the offending in the first charge represents offending against different notional victims.  But to make myself clear, there are, of course, two victims to the offending for which I am to sentence you today:  the first, being the victim represented by the police officer and the second being an actual victim in relation to the second charge.

13Your offending, Mr Perriman, spans a significant period of time.  The contact in the first charge spanned an initial period from 17 June to 12 August 2014, which is a period of approximately two months.  There was then later contact on 30 November 2015, some 13 months after the first contact had ceased.  The period encompassed by that first charge is therefore almost 17 months, although I do note and take account that it consisted of only a few contacts with the police operative over that time.  It was not consistent offending over that 15-month period.

14The contact in the second charge, with a real victim, spanned the period of 6 December 2013 to 6 May 2014:  a period of five months occurring just before you started the offending which is the subject matter of the first charge.  So altogether, if one were to look at the time that you started offending and the time that you stopped, you engaged in this criminal activity for which I am to sentence you today for a period of almost two years.

15I will now describe your conduct in more detail.  As I have said, the first charge covers the period of June 2014 to November 2015.  It relates to your internet contact with what you thought was a 12 to 13-year-old female.  In fact, unknown to you, your contact was a police operative using a profile name of "Jessica Gibson" and a stated age, in the initial contact, of 12 years.

16You contacted that operative using a chat platform by the name of Chat Avenue.  That is a teenage chat site.  The site specifies that the users must be at least 13 years of age but no older than 19, and the website advertises itself as a way to meet “hundreds of teenagers”.  You had created a profile for yourself in that chat room in September 2013, a month or so before the offending commenced in relation to the second charge.  Your profile was the name of "Toby Pierce" and you also created a separate profile of "Dude."

17You contacted the police operative initially under the name "Toby Pierce" and then under the name of "Dude."  Your action in setting up these profiles on that teenage chat site makes it clear that you wished to make contact with teenagers.  You used the profiles to engage in sexually explicit chat with a police operative, clearly thinking that she was, as she had described herself, a 12-year-old girl.

18During the course of your contact with her on Chat Avenue, you then requested her to make contact with you via the texting service available to you through Skype.  Skype text messages then passed between yourself and the police operative in which you attached a still photograph, initially of a teenage boy, purporting to be yourself, and then a photograph of an erect penis.

19During the course of your messaging between the police operative, you requested the operative to send a photo of herself.  You described the image on the photo which was sent by the police operative as having "nice boobs."  You asked the operative if she had a boyfriend and whether she wanted one.  During one exchange, you asked her to dream about you, saying that you would be dreaming about her.

20During all this conversation, I emphasise that you clearly believed the person you were contacting was a 12-year-old girl and during the conversation, you pretended to be a teenage boy.

21Your behaviour appears to have escalated about six weeks after the initial contact.  The messages you sent to this fictitious person on 12 August 2014 included comments and question as follows:  "Do you like my one?", which was sent after you sent an image displaying a male with an erect penis, and then the caption, "Your turn."  "Do you want to touch it?", clearly referring to the photo of the erect penis.  "Have you kissed a guy?"  You also requested from the operative a "naughty picture."

22You made no further contact with the police operative after that time until 30 November 2015, as I have earlier indicated.  The important aspects of that much later communication are that it appears to be a further escalation of your behaviour.

23Firstly, in that contact, you again used the chat website Chat Avenue, and also the Skype text-based service.  You asked the operative whether she had a boyfriend, and you suggested that you should "hook up" with her.  The operative identified herself as a 13-year-old girl on that occasion.  You sent the same image of an erect penis on this occasion and again requested that the operative send what you described as "naughty pictures in your bra or stuff."

24You made these comments on that occasion:  "Wanna suck my cock?", "Would you like to suck my dick?", "Have you kissed a guy?  Have you touched a dick?", "Do you touch yourself?", "I am horny.  I want someone to play with my cock."  To these questions, the operative replied that she was only 13 and did not really know much.

25I have set out some graphic parts of this communication in November 2015 in order to illustrate firstly that your behaviour appeared to be escalating over that time period, and secondly, that you well knew that the child was in the first instance a 12-year-old, and in this November 2015 incident, a 13-year-old.

26So that behaviour is the subject matter of the first charge.

27The second charge involves behaviour with an actual victim.  It occurred between 6 December 2013 and 6 May 2014.  So as I have indicated, it is earlier in time than the offending in the first charge and the offending in the first charge commenced with a month of you desisting this contact which I am about to detail here.

28At the time you contacted the victim in the second charge, she was actually between the age of 13 and 14 years.  There does not appear to be any direct evidence on this plea that you knew her exact age.  However, the fact that you also contacted her on Chat Avenue, which was a teenage website, would have alerted you to the fact that she was young.  Your plea of guilty to this charge is also proof that you did have that knowledge, and it has not been suggested on your behalf that you believed the child you contacted to have been over the age of 16 years.

29You also, having made the initial contact with this child through Chat Avenue, moved the contact to Skype.  During the whole of the conversation with this child, you purported to be a 17-year-old male by name of Toby Pierce.  You also sent to this victim images of a young topless male, pretending that this was you.  You also sent to this victim images of an exposed erect penis.  You requested the girl to send you images of herself, asking her for what you described as "naughty photos."  Thankfully, she did not do so.

30The victim believed, during this online conversation, that she was communicating with a 17-year-old potential boyfriend by the name of Toby Pierce.  In your texts to her, you asked her whether her hands were down her pants and if she was masturbating.  You told her that you wanted to have sex.  You also told her that you wanted to meet up with her, saying this:  "We'll go to the city one day."  Thankfully, her response to that, showing considerable maturity for a young girl, was "No."  Following that response, you did not contact her again.

31Your offending was discovered ultimately by the police being able to trace the IP address of a computer which you had used to make some of these contacts when staying in Sydney for a work conference.

32Mr Perriman, I have received two victim impact statements on this plea.  The first is from the victim in relation to the second charge, and the second is from that victim's mother.  In her victim impact statement, your victim describes how difficult it has been for her to tell her friends about what has happened.

33She blames herself for having been deceived by you.  She has repeated the online conversations in her head many times to try to understand how she became involved in this deception.  She feels very embarrassed and has isolated herself, becoming agitated and intolerant of her peers.  She describes herself as having lost trust in other people because she was deceived by you.  She describes increased social anxiety reflected in the fact that she finds public transport difficult to manage.

34She sometimes has panic attacks in fear that you have found out where she lives.  She describes in detail the way in which this offending has affected her relationships with her mother, as her mother is understandably now very protective of her, and perhaps overprotective.  She describes this as straining her relationship with her mother.

35She further describes how the effect of this investigation and the subsequent court case affected her schooling.  Unfortunately, all of this occurred when she was in the time of her Year 11 and Year 12 exams.  It appears that her final results at school may well have been affected as a result of the strain of having to deal with this matter.

36Her mother has also filed a victim impact statement.  She describes how she has suffered great distress from what she feels as having her let down her daughter by being unable to protect her against online grooming of the type that you have inflicted upon her.  She also recognises that her relationship with her daughter suffered and that she is now overprotective of her.  The mother also no longer trusts people and tells her daughter not to trust people.  She has isolated herself to some extent, and is constantly anxious.

37Mr Perriman, you yourself grew up in a warm, caring and well-educated family.  Your parents and siblings were present at your plea hearing and have supported you throughout this entire process.  You received an excellent education and scored highly in your high school exams; indeed, so well that you were able to take up an undergraduate degree at Melbourne University.

38You met your future wife whilst you were still a teenager, and at the time of the offending, you were living with your wife, having been married for approximately three years.  You are very well-educated, having, after completing the undergraduate degree, completed a postgraduate degree being a Masters of Education, and at the time of your apprehension you were working towards a Juris Doctor degree at Melbourne University which is a qualification to practice in law.

39At the time of the offending, you had therefore developed a very successful career for yourself.  You were working in the learning and development section of the Office of Public Prosecutions and you had also been working at HBA Learning Centres.

40You, in fact, were successful in obtaining your employment at the Office of Public Prosecutions in August of 2014.  You had commenced offending sometime before that time, and whilst you were still there, you continued your offending whilst working for the Office of Public Prosecutions, and whilst you were in what appeared to be a very successful marriage, surrounded by supportive family and friends.

41Mr Perriman, I received two psychological reports on your plea.  The first is a report of your treating psychologist, Rachel Mackenzie.  She started treating you on 6 August 2016, a few days after you were charged with these offences.  She has now seen you approximately 27 times at the time when she when she wrote the report, and also, I understand, on another two occasions since the first plea hearing.  So her treatment of you has thus spanned almost the last two years.

42In her report, she describes your life, particularly your family and employment life, in detail.  On the surface, as I said before, you appear to have had a very successful employment and personal life.  However, she describes a long history of you suffering from anxiety relating to your low self-esteem and your unfavourable comparisons which you have made yourself to your brother and to other professionally successful friends.

43You have unfortunately always felt yourself to be a failure, even though you have done very well academically and have obtained professional employment, and have had a happy home life.  Mackenzie described you as being very ashamed of your behaviour.  She says that you feel very guilty about the way in which this has impacted upon those around you.  She described you as suffering from what she diagnosed as adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.

44Significantly, she is not of the opinion that you meet the criteria for any form of paraphilic disorder.  She said that you are keen to develop to a greater awareness of why you committed these offences and the relationship between the offending and your low self-esteem.  She has also provided you with some relapse prevention strategies.

45She described you as committed to treatment and engaging well with her.  She said that you are now facing the issues relating to your offending in an open and frank manner, and that you have demonstrated your commitment to address these difficulties.  She said that initially, you had not significantly considered the harm your behaviour could cause to your victims, but now it appears that you do have this understanding and you have expressed considerable remorse to her for your actions.

46Mr Perriman, your career has been shattered as a result of your being charged with these offences.  I am told that you have now commenced an apprenticeship as a plumber.  This has not been an easy transition for you because it changes your worldview and those of your family about your professional expectations.  But on the other hand, you have found this quite liberating and you have been able to change your focus.

47Ms Mackenzie has some concerns about how you will be able to deal with a custodial sentence because of your vulnerability, but has indicated that she will continue as your clinician whether you are in prison or whether you are in the community. 

48Ms Mackenzie did not deal with the issue of your risk of reoffending, as she knew this was to be dealt by a report from Michael Billick, who is also a psychologist, and I have received Mr Billick's report.  He saw you once in February of this year and administered certain standard psychometric tests.  It is of great importance in your plea today that he considered you, after administration of these tests and after evaluating you in the interview, as being at low risk of offending.

49Overall, the risk profile which was received varied a little depending upon what test was taken, but I accept that the results from his administration of those tests to you indicate that you are at low risk of reoffending and I sentence you on that basis today.

50His conclusion also was that you did not suffer from any major mental illness or antisocial condition.  He described you as being articulate, well-presented and intelligent.  He also described your deep-seated belief that you are not good enough and your preoccupation with your own self-worth.  He considers your creation of a fraudulent online character as a reaction to cope with a deep-seated feeling that you are a fraud and that you will be exposed as a failure in life.

51Mr Billick does not believe that you require offence-specific intervention and believes you to be a good candidate for treatment into the future.  He suggests that if you are imprisoned, there may be some contamination from more experienced prisoners, as he describes you as being quite impressionable.  He also suggests that your existing condition of anxiety and low mood could become exacerbated in prison.

52Mr Perriman, I also received a reference from your wife, from your father and your mother, and two family friends and from two of your friends.  Each of those references speak of you in glowing terms.

53Your wife, particularly, outlines some of the difficulties that you had in your employment and personal life at the time of this offending.  She also outlines the way in which you have come to terms, ultimately, with this offending, and the steps that you have made towards rehabilitation.  She describes you as now understanding the gravity of your actions and the need to work through your mental health issues.  She describes, in vivid terms, your constant display of remorse, your courage in accepting responsibility for your actions, and your present motivation to better yourself and be a better person in the community.

54I accept the matters put forward in each of the personal references which have been provided to me.  I will not detail everything that was said in those references.  I accept that they show that you are very remorseful and ashamed of your criminal behaviour, and that you have a close-knit family and friends who will support you into the future.

55The first submission made to me by your counsel was that I should sentence you on the basis that there was no significant evidence of any intention by you to meet with either the undercover operative or the victim in the second charge.  There is, however, some indication of an intention to meet in relation to the second charge.

56As far as that indication was concerned, your counsel suggested to me that it was vague, general and non-specific, and that the suggestion was dropped by you as soon as the victim refused to meet.  I do accept that that was so.  However, the fact that the suggestion was made at all to the victim, who you knew was young, does aggravate your offending against this girl in the second charge to a certain extent.

57Your counsel also pointed out that there is no allegation of any offending by you after 30 November 2015 up until the time of your arrest in August 2016.  I agree that this is so.  The explanation that you give for ceasing to offend is that you subsequently read an article about online grooming and you realised from that article that your actions were very distressing and damaging to your victims.  You therefore made a deliberate choice not to be involved in any further offending.  I accept that this is the case, and that this reflects credit on you.  I treat it as a mitigatory feature of your offending.

58I accept also your counsel's submission that the offending is not accompanied by other offences which are often present in these situations, such as child pornography or any offences involving children, although it is also true, as the prosecutor pointed out, that if that had been the case then there would have been other offences which I would be sentencing you for today other than simply the two offences which I have described.

59Your counsel described your conduct as being inexplicable, particularly because of your excellent family background and education and the strengths of the family supports around you, including the support from your immediate family, your wife and your friends.  The best explanation that he can give, relying heavily on the psychological reports which I have referred to earlier, is that the offending arose out of your gross feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem.

60Without making any specific Verdins submissions, he invites me to see your psychological fragilities and inadequacies set out in those reports as being the context of this offending, and it is submitted to me that you are now well on the road to resolving these issues.  He draws my attention to the fact that you have never been involved in any prior contact with the court and have otherwise been of excellent character.  Mr Perriman, I accept those submissions and I agree that these are matters to be taken into account in your favour in sentencing you today.

61He also draws my attention to your early acceptance of responsibility for the offending as evidenced by your indication of intention to plead guilty at an early opportunity, and of course, to the material to which I have already referred in which you have expressed your deep remorse for this conduct.  You pleaded guilty well before trial.  You indicated your intention to do so at the committal mention hearing on 24 November 2016, three months after you were charged with these offences.

62I agree that these are matters to be taken into account, and that you appear now to be remorseful not just for the embarrassment and disgrace which you have brought upon yourself and your family, but also for the deep impact that has been suffered to your victim as a result of your actions.

63I have been asked also to take into account the significant delay in this case from the time when you were charged in August 2016 up until sentencing you today.  Indeed, from the time you first indicated your intention to plead guilty in November 2016, over 18 months has lapsed.

64It is two years since you were charged and two-and-a-half years since your offending ceased.  I agree that you have had this matter hanging over your head for that time, and this is also a significant matter to take into account in your favour, and that to some extent, you are a different person now than what you were at the time when these offences were committed.

65I also note and accept the submission that so far you have suffered a great deal as a result of your offending.  You have lost your employment and your career as it has been effectively ruined.  In saying this, I must however note that it is frequently the case that offenders who commit these crimes are of otherwise excellent character and have not before come into contact with the criminal justice system.

66Sadly, it is often the case that extended families of offenders find the offending inexplicable and out of character.  It is also not unusual for the disclosure of the offending to have had dramatic employment and family consequences.  The circumstances of that disclosure do often mean financial ruin for an offender, and often family relationships are destroyed.  Fortunately, your family has indicated its intention to stand by you.

67Mr Perriman, despite the significant material which I have outlined which was provided to me on your plea, I have determined that the only appropriate sentence for you is an immediate sentence of imprisonment.

68The offence of online grooming is, as I have said before, extremely serious.  Each of the offences carries a maximum sentence of 12 years' imprisonment, and in this case, you continued to offend over a significant period of time.

69Your offending involved two victims, and I say this to you, Mr Perriman:  the fact that the police operative was involved in the first charge does not make your offending in that charge less serious than it would have been if you had been communicating with an actual child.  That is because you thought at all times that you were communicating with a 12-year-old girl, and you were prepared to send these disgusting communications to a 12-year-old girl.

70The community can be thankful that you contacted a police operative on that occasion, not an actual 12-year-old, but that is not a matter which mitigates your offending in relation to that charge.  The offending in both charges is also rendered more serious by the fact that you were prepared to send a photograph of an erect penis to each victim and to discuss this photo with your victims in lurid terms.

71Your purpose in making the contact in each one of the occasions represented by the two rolled-up charges was to use the girl for your own sexual gratification.  You deliberately sought out young girls thinking your identity was hidden by your alias, and you did so in order to satisfy your sexual desires.  It is precisely this offending that this legislation is focused on.

72The Crimes Act (Cth) gives me the primary obligation to impose a sentence upon you that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.  I have taken into account in determining this sentence all of the matters listed in the Act to the best of my ability.

73General deterrence is not a matter that is specifically listed in the Act, but it is clear that I must take this into account as well.  It is an important part of the sentencing function that I am discharging today to signal to anyone in the community who might be tempted to engage in this kind of offending, from whatever walk of life they come, that this offending, easily done and not easily detected, will be dealt with firmly by the courts if it is found out.

74I accept that denunciation of your conduct is a significant aspect of my sentencing today.  The community is entitled to expect that this type of predatory behaviour against young teenagers will be dealt with firmly.

75I am also required to taken into account the personal circumstances of any victim of the offence, and as I have already indicated the fact that there is no actual victim in relation to the first charge does not lessen its seriousness.  But I do have victim impact statements in relation to the second change, and those victim impact statements reveal how acutely your actions have affected the life of your victim and the life of her mother, in relation to this charge.  I take into account those matters in those statements today.

76I am also required to take into account the degree to which you have shown contrition for the offence, and I have already indicated my findings in that respect.

77Mr Perriman, I am also required to take into account what is called "specific deterrence"; that is, the prospect of deterring you from engaging in further offending of this nature in the future.  I say to you clearly that I am confident from what I have heard that you will not reoffend.

78I accept that you have excellent prospects of rehabilitation, and I accept that your commitment to your own rehabilitation became evident once your offending was detected by the authorities.  I also take comfort from the fact that you ceased offending before apprehension.  Your counsel has emphasised, and I note, that you will have significant support from your wife and your family into the future in assisting that rehabilitation.

79So Mr Perriman, I do not regard specific deterrence as being a relevant factor in sentencing you today.  I need to take into account, of course, your prospects of rehabilitation and in looking at that, I say all of the matters that I have just indicated in respect of the issue of specific deterrence.

80I have the task today, Mr Perriman, in arriving at a just sentence, to take into account each one of those matters put forward on your plea. I must be mindful also, that under the Crimes Act, that I should not pass a sentence of imprisonment unless I am satisfied after considering all available sentences, that no other sentence is appropriate in the circumstances of your case.

81Taking all of these matters into account, your counsel  suggested to me on the last time this matter was before me that although the sanction of immediate imprisonment was available to me, the matters which you have put forward in mitigation take your case into an exceptional category and make a non-custodial disposition the appropriate sanction.  Your counsel submitted to me that it cannot be in the public interest for you to be imprisoned where you have now re-ordered your behaviour towards a law-abiding lifestyle.  Your counsel submitted that instead of imprisoning you, I should utilise the disposition of a community corrections order.

82Mr Perriman, it is my view that the imposition of a community corrections order will not sufficiently reflect the gravity of your conduct as I have described it in these sentencing reasons, the length of time over which it occurred or the fact that it was directed to separate victims.

83After anxious consideration of all of the very worthy matters put on your behalf by your counsel, I have determined that a sentence of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence available to me in the circumstances of your case, and it was for this reason that I remanded you in custody at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing on the last occasion.

84In arriving at this conclusion, I am aware of the observations made by Rachel Mackenzie that you may be vulnerable in prison, and Michael Billick that you are quite impressionable and that your existing condition may be exacerbated in prison.  Your counsel drew my attention to those observations during the plea hearing, and I do consider them relevant in sentencing you today.  However, even taking them into account as I have determined to do, my overall view is that these are issues which need to be addressed by the prison authorities in your placement within the prison environment.

85To a certain extent, vulnerability and anxiety is to be expected from a first-time prisoner.  I do not see the evidence given about those issues as precluding a sentence of imprisonment, but I do accept them as being weighty matters as to the time period of imprisonment, and also as to the need for those matters to be managed during your sentence.

86Mr Perriman, can you stand up, please?

87Matthew Perriman, on the first charge of using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age for sexual activity, contrary to sub-s.474.271 of the Criminal Code, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. That sentence commences today, being 26 July 2018.

88On the second charge, also of using a carriage service to groom, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.  That sentence commences three months from today.

89The fact that it commences at a later time is a cumulation recognising the fact that the offence in Charge 2 took place at a different time from that in Charge 1, and involved you contacting a different victim.

90Mr Perriman, that means an effective term of imprisonment of two years.

91I have, however, come to the conclusion that it is appropriate for me to make an order that some part of that period of imprisonment that I am to impose upon you today be served by way of a release on a recognizance order.

92I have come to that conclusion having regard to the material which I have outlined in your favour which has been presented on the plea, and I accept that the aim of denunciation and general deterrence can be satisfied by the imposition of a term of imprisonment even if the sentence is not fully actually served.

93Accordingly, what I propose to do is to sentence you to that effective term of imprisonment of two years, but to release you after you have served an effective term of six months in total upon you entering into recognizance in the sum of $5,000 to be of good behaviour for three years.

94So, Mr Perriman, what I propose to do is to order that you be released from prison after serving six months in total of the sentences that I have imposed today.  The period of the recognizance release order will be three years, and the sum specified will be $5,000.  So that means that you will serve an effective sentence of six months' imprisonment before being released into the community, and I will also order that the seven days that you have already served be taken into account in that calculation.

95Now, Mr Perriman, I will ask you to sit down for just a minute, because what I want to do now is check with the prosecutor and defence counsel as to the appropriate way to proceed having announced those sentences.

96Madam Prosecutor, is there any difficulty that you can see with the way in which I proposed to go about the sentencing process?  In particular, do I need to provide separate recognizances on each charge, or can I just say that there is a recognizance release order with a release on each charge, six months from today?

97MS HAWKER:  Your Honour, where each charge exceeds a period of six months, that requires a recognizance release order to be expressed by the court.  For the terms of clarity, what charge does the recognizance attach to?

98HER HONOUR:  It would attach to each charge.

99MS HAWKER:  To each charge?  So would each be a recognizance after serving six months in the amount of $5,000 for a period of three years?

100HER HONOUR:  Yes.

101MS HAWKER:  As I understand, that does not cause any difficulties in terms of the mechanics of sentencing, Your Honour, and I do have with me today an order that I can fill out to release the offender on recognizance after six months.

102HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.  Is there anything else that you want to bring to my attention at the moment?  I know that I have not finished.  I have still got a couple of things to deal with, but I just want to make sure before I explain the terms of the recognizance to Mr Perriman that I am clear that it is just one recognizance ‑ ‑ ‑

103MS HAWKER:  Yes, Your Honour. 

104HER HONOUR:  ‑ ‑ ‑ to be released after six months in relation to each one of the charges.

105MS HAWKER:  Yes, Your Honour.  Nothing further in terms of the sentence imposed for each charge.

106HER HONOUR:  Thank you, yes.  Yes, Mr Edney?

107MR EDNEY:  Yes, I agree with what has just fallen from the learned prosecutor.  The only issue, Your Honour, is in relation to pre-sentence detention.  I calculated nine days on the basis ‑ ‑ ‑

108HER HONOUR:  I am sorry.  I am sure you are right.

109MS HAWKER:  Your Honour, that is correct.

110HER HONOUR:  Nine days.

111MR EDNEY:  Yes, nine days, Your Honour.

112HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you. 

113MR EDNEY:  But that is the only matter.

114HER HONOUR:  All right.  So, Mr Perriman, if you could stand up again.

115You heard the discussion that I have had with the barristers.  What I propose to do now is to explain to you what the recognizance is all about, and invite you to sign a recognizance.  I cannot, of course, release you on a recognizance unless you are prepared to sign it, and in a minute I will give your barrister the opportunity to speak to you about the details of it.

116But what I want to say to you about the recognizance is this:  what it means is that after you have spent six months in prison, taking into account nine days pre-sentence detention, you will be permitted by me to serve the balance of the term in the community.  You will be subject to a condition that you be of good behaviour during the period of three years from the date the recognizance comes into effect.

117If you fail to comply with this condition - that is, if you are not of good behaviour, if you are brought back before a court - you will be brought back before me.  The recognizance of $5,000 will be forfeited.  You do not have to pay that unless you are brought back before a court.  But you will be dealt with for these two offences again.  And can I say to you, Mr Perriman, that you should expect that if you do come back for any reason, that you will be required to serve the full terms of imprisonment which I have imposed today.

118I am also required to tell you that there are some circumstances where you can apply for a discharge or a variation of this order.  Now, do you understand what I have explained to you and are you prepared to sign the recognizance?

119OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour. 

120HER HONOUR:  All right.  If that can be prepared, Madam Prosecutor, and I will go on with the other matters which I need to explain to you.

121MS HAWKER:  Your Honour, the recognizance has been prepared and has also been provided to my learned friend.

122HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.  Is there any issue with the way that the recognizance is ‑ ‑ ‑

123MR EDNEY:  No, it is expressed to reflect Your Honour's intention.

124HER HONOUR:  Now, Mr Perriman, I need to tell you what order I would have made if you had not pleaded guilty, and I say to you that if you had not pleaded guilty to this charge, I would have sentenced you to an effective term of imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of two-and-a-half years.

125Now, Mr Perriman, as a result of your offending, you are now subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Registration Act. Both of those offences are Class 2 offences and so that means that I must make an order against you in relation to that Act, and you are now ordered to report under that Act for a period of 15 years.

126I need also to tell you of your reporting obligations under that Act, and I need my associate to serve that written notice upon you.  So what I will do is ask your counsel to now explain to you the recognizance release order and the Sex Offenders Registration Act order, and if you are prepared to do so, I will ask you to sign both of those documents.

127MR EDNEY:  Both of those documents have been signed, Your Honour.

128HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.  I have also signed the recognizance release order, and I need to sign the sex offenders registration form.  Yes, thank you.  I have now signed those documents, and the orders which I propose to make I have now indicated.

129Mr Perriman, the effect of this sentence is that you will serve six months further imprisonment and be released into the community.  On your release in the community you will have the opportunity to demonstrate your rehabilitation, and I trust that that rehabilitation is complete, and that there will be no further contact between yourself and the criminal law.

130Yes, thank you.  Remove the prisoner.  Yes, thank you.  Is there anything else?

131MR EDNEY:  No, Your Honour. 

132MS HAWKER:  Nothing further.

133HER HONOUR:  Thank you for your assistance, to both counsel, and I will adjourn the court sine die.

‑ ‑ ‑