Director of Public Prosecutions v Peters (a pseudonym)

[2016] VCC 1104

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

VINCENT PETERS (a pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE ALLEN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 July 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Peters (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VCC 1104

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms Flynn
For the Offender	Mr D. Wraith

Pages 1 - 18

 

 

HIS HONOUR:

1Vincent Peters,[1] you have pleaded guilty to three charges of sexual penetration of a child between ten and 16 years.  Those offences occurred between 1983 and 1989.  Charge 1 involved you being engaged in an ongoing practice with your step-daughter over a period of something in excess of five years.  Charge 2 related to one alleged isolated event of oral penetration which occurred in the year 1987 or 1988. Charge 3 related to an ongoing practice of a vibrator to penetrate your step-daughter over a period of approximately a year, 1987 and 1988.

[1] A pseudonym.

2You came before the court with no prior convictions and it is significant to note that since the end of the offending behaviour, in approximately 1989, you have not come under the notice of the police. You have no subsequent convictions and there are no other matters pending against you.

3At the time of the alleged offending you were aged between 28 and 34, having been born on 26 December 1954.  Your victim was aged between ten and 15 years, having been born on 14 October 1973.  The victim is your step-daughter.  Her father had died in July 1982.  Shortly after that, her mother began a relationship with you and, eventually, you and the victim's mother married in November 1983.  The victim was aged ten years at the time.  By the time you married you were already living in the family home with the victim's mother, her older brother, her grandmother and the victim.

4The details of your offending are set out in comprehensive form in the prosecution opening on plea, which was tendered and marked as Exhibit A.  Briefly stated, those circumstances were as follows.  When the victim was aged about ten, you commenced to enter the bathroom regularly when she was showering and watched her doing so.  At that time, you began to show her books containing pictures of the human anatomy and engaging her in conversation about puberty and sex.  Whilst doing that, you would rub your hands over her body.  Those circumstances represent the contextual circumstances.

5The first occasion of sexual penetration of the victim occurred when she was ten. You called her inside the house and took her by the hand, you walked her into your bedroom, directed her to remove her clothes and to lie on the bed.  The victim explained to the police that she was frightened but complied with these requests.  You removed your pants, inserted your penis into her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her.  She had stated that this caused her great pain and that when this was over she ran from your bedroom to her own in distress. According to her account, you followed her into her bedroom, hugged her and told her that she had just lost her virginity and that sex would become better the more times she had it.

6Several days later this conduct was repeated. On that day you took the victim, again, into your bedroom and, again, had penile vaginal sexual intercourse with her.  From this time on, you would have penile vaginal sexual intercourse with your step-daughter regularly.  She has described it as occurring nearly every day. These circumstances constitute Charge 1, the charge of sexual penetration of a person aged between 10 and 16, between October 1983 and October 1989. 

7On one occasion, during the course of this conduct, when the victim was aged 14, after she had moved into her brother's old bedroom, you came into her new bedroom and directed her to kiss your penis.  She got down onto her knees and did so.  You then forced her head forwards onto your penis and moved your penis in and out of her mouth, until you ejaculated into her mouth.  She described to the police coughing uncontrollably, thinking she was going to vomit as a result of that conduct.  These circumstances constitute Charge 2 on the indictment.

8Again, when the victim was aged about 14, during late 1987 or early in 1988, there was an occasion when you produced a small vibrator and inserted it into her vagina.  You continued to use the vibrator on her, what has been described as ‘a couple of times a week’, over the next 12 months or so.  When the victim was in Year 9 she became ill.  She felt sick and listless.  Her mother took her to the doctor where the doctor confirmed that she was pregnant.  Her mother gave a false account of the cause of that pregnancy to the doctor, telling the doctor that her boyfriend had caused her to become pregnant.  She had no such boyfriend.  That was a lie.  You had caused her to become pregnant. Arrangements were made for her to have an abortion and you and her mother took her to Geelong for that purpose.  After that procedure, she felt relieved in the sense that she believed that that would be the end of the sexual abuse, perpetrated on her, by you.  She was wrong.  After a short time, you again proceeded to continue to force yourself upon her, despite the fact that, by now she was becoming more vocal and resistant when you wanted to have sex with her.

9When the victim was about 15 or 16 years of age, she decided that the only way to put an end to this was to leave home. She moved out of the family home.  She initially lived with her brother and later on her own; eventually, she moved in with a friend.  The circumstances under which she lived, during the years after she had left home, are set out in tragic and painful detail, in the victim impact statement.

10Over the years the victim told various people what had happened, including her brother.  However, the victim recanted what she had told her brother; of course, her recantation was untrue.  Finally, in late 2014, as a result of counselling the victim had been receiving, she felt strong enough and made a complaint to the police.  The victim wanted to try and put an end to the ongoing emotional misery she was suffering.  She went to the police and made a formal complaint, in a detailed statement, setting out these matters. By arrangement with the police, the victim secretly recorded a conversation with you, what the law knows as a pretext conversation.  That occurred on 26 January 2015.  It was a very lengthy conversation that ran for over two hours.

11Before you pleaded guilty to these charges, the trial had commenced and the pretext conversation was played in court.  Sitting and listening to that pretext conversation was one of the most painful things I have experienced in 30 years in the law.  It was painful because of the things that the victim, your step-daughter, said; the way in which she said them; the depth of the devastation that your conduct had caused her, both emotionally and psychologically; and, in terms of how it impacted her relationships with her mother and, as the years went on, with her partner and husband. As the prosecution summary states, during that conversation, you did not deny any of the allegations that she made.  In fact, you repeatedly apologised without specifically stating what it was that you were apologising for.  It was clear to me, and it would have been clear to any listener that, by virtue of your failure to deny the allegations, as well as, your frequent apologies, you were admitting to what you had done.  However, you were unable to verbalise, to state unequivocally, what it was that you were actually apologising for. At one stage, as I recall it, whilst she begged you to say what it was that you were apologising for, you said something like, "I apologise for everything.  I'm sorry for everything."  She said, "but what are you sorry for?"  There was a long silence and she said words to the effect of, "don’t sit there in tears, just say what it is”. You replied that you couldn’t.

12Unfortunately, after you were arrested and the police interviewed you, you reverted to a position of a bald denial, despite signs you showed of remorse in the pretext conversation. Proceedings then commenced as a contest.  You pleaded not guilty at the committal mention.  Fortunately, you accepted a hand-up brief and there was no cross-examination of your step-daughter.

13The matter was listed and eventually came on for trial.  Your step-daughter had to suffer the ongoing anxiety and distress of awaiting the day when she would have to appear in the court and give evidence. The trial started, you pleaded not guilty.  When it got near the end of the examination-in-chief, and the pretext conversation had been played, you had received further advice from your barrister and taken on board some observations that I had made, eventually you pleaded guilty to these charges. 

14As the Crown have conceded, it was significant in all the circumstances of this case, that your plea of guilty was entered. It was significant due to the fact your step-daughter, the victim, had never been cross-examined and never challenged about the allegations that she had made.  Therefore, as you will see, you will receive a significant benefit by virtue of that plea of guilty.  I will come back to that topic in due course.

15The gravity of your offending is reflected in the maximum penalty imposed of 15 years.  In my view, the gravity of your offending is not adequately reflected in that penalty.  It was open to the prosecution to charge you with the much more serious crime of incest, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years.  At the relevant time it carried a maximum penalty of 20 years.  It was also open to the prosecution, in relation to your conduct, to charge you with rape, also carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years; this, of course, was due to the fact you had forced yourself upon your step-daughter, after the abortion, after she had rejected you and attempted to resist. I fail to comprehend how it was that the Director of Public Prosecutions did not to charge you with those more serious offences.  Accordingly, the sentences that I impose upon you today will be significantly less than what would have been imposed, had you been charged with those more serious offences.  You receive a significant benefit by virtue of the decision taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions to frame the indictment in the way that it was framed.

16After your sentence, you will be provided a notice indicating that you are a registered sexual offender, under the Sexual Offenders Registration Act. This notice will inform you of your requirement to comply with the provisions of the Sexual Offenders Registration Act regulations for your lifetime.  I will also be sentencing you as a serious sexual offender.  I note that the Crown has not submitted that I should impose a disproportionate sentence in order to achieve the sentencing objective of community protection and I will not.

17The learned prosecutor, Ms Flynn, in her very helpful submissions, submitted that your actions represent three serious examples of this offence.  She pointed to a number of features causing the offence to fall within a more serious category:

i.your offending began when the victim was aged only ten, a young child;

ii.the offending was protracted and continued over a period of years until the victim was aged 15 or 16;

iii.the offending involved a gross breach of trust by you, her step-father, in her own home after her father had died;

iv.the offending only ceased as a result of the victim moving out of the home; having moved out in order to get away from the horrible situation which confronted her;

v.at least in the last 12 months of the offending you used a vibrator, which the prosecutor described as "a degrading and humiliating experience for a young girl";

vi.the ongoing penile vaginal penetration over those years involved unprotected sex, which put her not only at risk of pregnancy but sexually transmitted disease;

vii.the victim actually fell pregnant and had to undergo a termination at the age of 14, which, on her description, was a traumatic event and has left an indelible mark upon her both emotionally and psychologically.  I accept to use the words of the Court of Appeal in Dalgleish that these circumstances amount to “a highly aggravating factor”[2]; and,

viii.finally, as is poignantly described in her victim impact statement, your offending led to a destruction of the natural bond between the victim and her mother.  In my view it is impossible to overstate the gravity of that circumstance and its impact upon her life and the life of her children, her mother's grandchildren.

[2]DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 148 at [25]

18The prosecutor submitted that the effect upon the victim has been profound and this is apparent not only throughout the recorded pretext conversation, as I have mentioned, but is most eloquently and painfully set out in her victim impact statement.

19It has been submitted and of course I accept that the sentencing objectives of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, protection of the community and rehabilitation are all relevant sentencing objectives.  However, I find, in the particular circumstances of this case, that the sentencing objectives of specific deterrence and protection of the community should have less weight than they might in other cases.

20I was helpfully referred to the recent Court of Appeal case of R v Poursanidis[3]. where the court made it clear that in the case of course of conduct charges, which I should have already mentioned, is the nature of Charge 1 and Charge 2 on the indictment, it remains the case that;

"Close attention must be given to the maximum sentence available for the offence.  The maximum remains a yardstick by which the gravity of the offending is to be assessed, even though the offence itself is charged in court of conduct terms."[4]

[3] [2016] VSCA 164

[4] Ibid, per Weinberg JA at [11]

21I accept the prosecutor's submission that the approach to be taken by me in sentencing you, in relation to the course of conduct charges, is to be a similar approach which is taken by the courts in sentencing in relation to, what is referred to as, rolled up charges.  The approach to be taken in relation to rolled up charges was most recently explained in R v Clarkson,[5] where the court said, amongst other things,

"All of the counts were rolled-up counts… each count encompassed multiple separate acts, each of which constituted the offence in question. The sentencing judge was bound to take into account all of the criminality involved in each rolled-up count, subject of course to the applicable maximum for a single count."[6]

[5] [2011] VSCA 157

[6] Ibid, at [87].

22I have referred to the victim impact statement.  It was read to the court and tendered and marked as Exhibit B.  In the statement the victim explains the depth and extent of the impact of your offending upon her life in a range of ways. She describes the impact it has had in relation to -

i.her life experience;

ii.her education;

iii.her difficulties in confronting problems with alcohol abuse;

iv.her need for ongoing psychological counselling; and,

v.having to grapple with ongoing emotional and psychological problems.

She said amongst other things that, in her view, you stole her childhood.  As a result of what you did to her, for years she felt isolated and ashamed.  At the time of her termination, at the age of 14, she said that what had occurred had made her feel cheap and dirty.  As the years have gone on, the impact has been ongoing.  I will not describe all of those things again, they are contained in Exhibit B. 

23She says that due to fate she ended up meeting her partner, who eventually became her husband.  She describes his deep love for her, her love for him and her ongoing wish that she could deal with the sense that he body is frozen and immobilised, as well as, being overwhelmed with fear when he seeks intimacy.  She says, "I just want this thing to be normal and easier."  She is working on that.  It can only be hoped that she succeeds.  She says amongst other things that, quite apart from her relationship with her husband, she still finds it hard to trust any man, even professional men like doctors and physiotherapists.  She says that she is overly protective of her children.

24On an optimistic note, she concludes her victim impact statement by saying, notwithstanding all of this, she believes that she is now more alive and stronger than ever and that whilst her mental scars are an ongoing reminder of what has happened in the past it will not define her future.  On the very last line of the victim impact statement, she tragically describes the fact that, to this day, neither you nor her mother has been able to say sorry for what happened.

25A plea in mitigation was made on your behalf by Mr Wraith.  He pointed out, appropriately, that prior to this offending you had had no previous criminal history but your life had been difficult, by reason of circumstances that I will explain in a moment.  Those difficult circumstances, it would seem, have left you with permanent scars, emotionally and psychologically.  Those scars have affected your life and the neuropsychologist who assessed you spoke to your parents and your wife and obtained a great deal of information. The doctor expresses the opinion that the psychological impact of events that occurred, particularly in your twenties, may partially explain how it was that you were able to disassociate yourself from the gravity of your conduct with your step-daughter.

26Your counsel relied on the fact that in the nearly 30 years, since the offending ceased, you have not come under the notice of the police, you have not committed any further offences, in particular there has been no further sexual offending on your part, or violent offending of any kind.  Those factors, that is, the absence of prior convictions and more importantly the absence of any subsequent misconduct on your part in the last 28 years, are relevant in assessing two matters.  First, the need for the community to be protected from you, by way of you being incarcerated; and, secondly, the prospects of rehabilitation, involving the risk of you re-offending.

27Having reviewed all of the material in this case I find that you have an excellent prospect of being rehabilitated.  I find there is a very minimal, if any, risk that you would ever reoffend in such a way; and, that, accordingly, the sentencing objective of community protection has little work to play in the circumstances of this case.

28Your counsel also relied upon the fact that you are now in your sixties.  By the time you are released from gaol you will be elderly.  You suffer from both physical and mental ill health.  He submitted, appropriately, that those factors would render your imprisonment more burdensome than it would be for a younger, physically and mentally healthy, offender.

29The neuropsychological report of Dr Warwick Brewer, dated 18 July 2016, was tendered.  I have carefully considered the contents of that report.  I found it to be very helpful.  The report sets out, in summary form, the circumstances of your upbringing, a personal history.  Your parents are now elderly and still live together.  Your father is a retired member of the Victoria Police Force.  You are the eldest of four children.  You clearly received a decent, good upbringing in a decent, law abiding family.  Your father was a strict disciplinarian.  You attended local primary schools.  From primary schooling onwards you had some difficulties at school. Your mother has explained that you appeared to struggle at primary school and you began truanting.  According to your mother's recollection, when you were in first grade, aged about six and a half, you were hit by a motor vehicle and hospitalised for some days. Thereafter, your parents noticed that you seemed to suffer reduced comprehension and difficulties at school.  You began truanting more frequently from school.  The truanting problem continued into your secondary education.  You told Dr Brewer that on one occasion, when you were aged 13, you attempted to shoot yourself, although your parents have no recollection of any such event.

30You thought that you were an average student at school.  Your parents thought that you struggled.  In any event, you left at the end of Year 9.  Apart from struggles at school, you had some other issues that involved you at one stage hanging around with undesirable peers, in your father's view anyway.  You presented a management problem for your parents, so much so that you were admitted to a boys home, when you were aged 13, and stayed about nine months there.  In my view, that was clearly indicative that even at that young age you were struggling.

31According to what you told Dr Brewer there were subsequent attempts on your life. When you were aged 17 you overdosed with an antidepressant; on another occasion you attempted to self-harm using a razor blade.  These events occurred when you were living in Sydney with your cousin.  Your parents knew nothing about these incidents.

32In my view, on the evidence, with these underlying difficulties your situation was aggravated then when, in your mid-twenties, you suffered serious injuries to your lungs, as a result of a violent stabbing when criminals entered your home and attacked you in a case of mistaken identity, it seems.  You were rushed to St Vincent's Hospital by ambulance and admitted to the intensive care unit, where you remained for seven days.  Thereafter, there was a long convalescence and, as I understand it, you have suffered the ongoing consequences of those physical injuries ever since.  You still have a serious condition affecting your lungs, which causes you ongoing pain and discomfort.  More importantly, it is the professional opinion of Dr Brewer that those events have left you with a potential post-traumatic stress disorder, which has never been dealt with and treated.

33Despite these difficulties, it would seem that you have generally, throughout your life, maintained a good employment history, in particular you worked for nine years at the Carpet Company.  You have had two relationships of significance.  You were married in the early 1980s and as a result of that marriage you had a child, a daughter.  That marriage only lasted 18 months.  Later in the 1980s, as I have mentioned, you met and eventually married the victim's mother and you and she have been together ever since.  She still stands by you and has been in court throughout these proceedings to support you.

34As far as your physical ailments are concerned I do not have any direct evidence before me.  What I have is Dr Brewer's description of what you described to him and information that you have provided to your solicitor, which has been conveyed to your counsel.  I note that there was no suggestion on the part of the prosecutor that I should refuse to accept that information and act upon it, and so I do. I accept that you have suffered, what Dr Brewer describes as, ongoing chronic medical problems.  They include: chest pain as a result of what has been described as plural plaque; the current left rotor cuff tear to your shoulder, which also causes pain and discomfort; a hernia; degenerative discs in your back; and, ongoing headaches.  According to Dr Brewer you are presently, or were at the time he saw you, being medicated in relation to chronic pain and in relation to depression. 

35Your counsel has informed me that, since you have been remanded in custody, your medication has been removed and you are not presently medicated.  Although, he informs me that you are receiving ongoing monitoring.  I trust and expect that you will receive appropriate medical attention during the course of your sentence.  Both in relation to your chronic pain and other physical ailments and your mental illness, namely depression and anxiety, in relation to which you had been medicated for a period of time, prior to being remanded.

36Dr Brewer performed a number of standard tests in relation to assessing your intelligence and psychological make-up, as well as, you emotional and psychological health.  Those tests revealed that, whilst you fall within the average range in terms of your general IQ, you are "significantly compromised" in relation to your verbal working memory.  Dr Brewer found that your verbal working memory ability fell within the low to average range. He said that your new verbal learning skills were impaired and disorganised and fell well below the age equivalent norms.  He said, also, that your verbal fluency was significantly compromised, relative to your age equivalent norms.  He found that you were suffering mild levels of depressive symptoms and levels of anxiety.  In his summary and conclusions, he described you as a man who was currently depressed and being treated for depression and chronic pain.  He found that you exhibited features of post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the stabbing injury you suffered many years ago which I have described. In summary, Dr Brewer stated the following.

"The most compelling features of Mr Peters’ clinical history and cognitive profile detailed above are his untreated post-traumatic distress… his apparent reinvention of memories of self-harm attempts at early adolescence and his significant problems with new verbal learning.  The latter is a likely sequealae of and consistent with anoxia following the injuries to his lungs, nevertheless the compounding impact of latent anxiety linked to his post-traumatic stress and his more obvious depression should not be underestimated... There is sufficient cognitive evidence as detailed above to suggest that Mr Peters is experiencing some functional compromise of his actual potential from anoxia and/or post-traumatic stress achievement to support a diagnosis of mild acquired brain injury" and adds at paragraph 25 of his report that, "In view of the functional impact of the array of cognitive and behavioural compromise, and particular the former, it is this clinician's opinion that Mr Peters does meet the technical criteria of impaired mental functioning."

37Dr Brewer goes on to make it clear that:

"there is no sufficient evidence to suggest that at the time of the commission of his offences Mr Peters had impaired mental functioning from his ABI to such an extent that it is causally linked to the commission of the offences.  Mr Peters is not so cognitively impaired that he is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.  Although from the perspective of emotional maturity he reflects an immature appreciation of the impact of his behaviour upon his step-daughter."

38I should clarify that whilst Dr Brewer suggested that, in his opinion, on the balance of probabilities, the "compounding impact" of your ABI and early and subsequent emotional compromise, might reflect a mild compromising impact on your ability to reason, think and make proper judgment and to engage in consequential thinking.  It was not suggested that this amounts to something that should minimise your moral culpability, or in any other way work to mitigate your sentence in the ways described in the case of Verdins.[7] 

[7]R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269

39Finally, Dr Brewer was of the opinion that you require, as a priority, treatment for post-traumatic stress and long term therapy to assist you with addressing the impact on your life of long standing emotional vulnerabilities.  He noted that, in the context of limited available resources within the prison system, it is not likely that you will attract necessary therapeutic support, to the extent that he has recommended, whilst you are in gaol.

40So I have taken into account, amongst other things, those matters in deciding the appropriate sentence.  The courts have stated, time and time again, over decades, that the law must protect vulnerable children from the ravages of sexual abuse; in particular, the courts are obliged to impose stern sentences upon offenders who sexually abuse children when they are in a position of trust, especially such is that of a parent or step-parent.  Children are necessarily vulnerable.  They are highly vulnerable, in particular, to the lifelong damage that is reeked upon them by sexual abuse.  Children deserve to feel not only loved but safe and protected, especially in their own homes, especially in the care and company of their parents or step-parents.

41As the prosecution correctly submitted, your offending represents a serious example of this type of abhorrent and appalling misconduct.  The offending was disgusting.  I have already used the word devastating several times.  It is impossible to exaggerate the extent of the devastation that your appalling conduct caused to that child, who is now an adult, still suffering the consequences of what you did.  However as a very learned Judge of this court said many years ago, "the sentencing process must not be affected by emotions.” I am required to apply the law.  I am required to apply clearly established principles of sentencing.  Those sentencing principles require me to take into account of course the gravity of the offending and its impact upon its victim.

42I am also required to take into account other factors, such as, the relevant maximum sentences applies to the particular charge, in relation to which the sentence is to be imposed, I have already commented upon that.  I am required to take into account other matters by way of mitigation, such as, whether or not the offender pleaded guilty; you did.  Such as, the stage in the proceedings when the offender pleaded guilty; you pleaded guilty at a very late stage but significantly prior to the victim being cross-examined.  There is no doubt, and the prosecution have conceded, that the emotional pain and distress to your victim would have been aggravated significantly, had the process been allowed to continue through the trial. 

43The law also requires me to take into account whether or not the offender has serious prior criminal convictions.  That is, a recidivist who has failed to learn the lesson of previous prison terms or court orders.  The law requires me to take into account if the offences are old, the subsequent conduct of the offender, does that subsequent conduct reveal a pattern of ongoing criminality or the contrary?  Does it reveal that the offender has not reoffended again?  Does it reveal the offender is a risk to the community?  Does it reveal that the offender has little chance of rehabilitating?  I have commented upon those matters already.

44The law requires me to take into account the age and state of health of the offender, and the circumstances under which they will serve their sentence.  So, I have taken all of those matters into account.  In summary, I have taken into account, on one hand, that these offences represent a serious example of this kind of offending in the ways I have described, but I have also taken into account that you have pleaded guilty, eventually, and that avoided the need for cross-examination.  I have taken into account that you have accepted a hand-up brief and there was no ross-examination at the committal.

45I accept that your plea of guilty is consistent with a level, which I cannot define, of remorse.  I made some observations about that during the course of the plea.  Your plea of guilty has certainly facilitated the course of justice, it cut short this trial.  It cut it short at the most crucial stage at which you could have pleaded guilty.

46As I have mentioned, I have taken into account your absence of prior convictions and more importantly the absence of any subsequent convictions in terms of assessing the need for community protection and the prospects of rehabilitation.  I have taken into account the matters that I have described in relation to your age, psychological issues and impaired mental functioning, and physical ill health.  Those matters are relatively minor compared with the level of your offending and the severity of the sentence that I must impose, however, they are matters which have gone, to some extent, to reduce the sentence. I have taken them into account, in particular, in considering the appropriate minimum non-parole period.  It was conceded by the prosecutor that it was appropriate for me to reflect those matters, in particular, in setting a minimum non-parole period that is lower than what I might have otherwise imposed, had this matter proceeded as a trial. Weighing up all these matters it is my considered view that the appropriate sentences are as follows;

47On Charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for nine years.

48On Charge 2 you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for three years.

49On Charge 3 you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for four years.

50I direct that one year of the sentence on Charge 2 and one year of the sentence of Charge 3 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and on each other.

51That results in a total effective sentence of 11 years.  I fix a minimum non-parole period of seven years.

52I declare pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act that but for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to 14 years with a minimum non-parole period of ten years.

53A notice pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act will now be provided to you by my Associate, which you will need to sign by way of acknowledgment. 

54Pursuant to s.464ZF of the Crimes Act I order that you undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a scraping from your mouth of a forensic sample of sufficient standard to place on the database.  I have made that order in light of the seriousness of your offending and bearing in mind that it was not opposed.  I am obliged to warn you that, if at the time that procedure is conducted you do not consent to providing a mouth swab, the authorities may use reasonable force to obtain a blood sample.

55I declare that you have already served 44 days by way of pre-sentence detention which will be reckoned as having been served pursuant to the sentence that I have just imposed.

56Are there any other orders?

57COUNSEL:  No.

58HIS HONOUR:  I note that you have now signed an acknowledgment that you have received a notice pursuant to the Sex Offender Reporting Regulations and you will be required to report and comply with the regulations for the rest of your life. 

‑ ‑ ‑