Director of Public Prosecutions v Prior (a pseudonym)

[2019] VCC 1672

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

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ADAM PRIOR (a pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 October 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 October 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Prior (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 1672

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:

Catchwords:

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:

Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms G. Craven	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr P. Casey	Kim McFarlane Lawyers

HIS HONOUR: 

1Adam Prior[1], you have pleaded guilty to four charges of a child under the age of 16 and one charge of sexual assault of a child under the age of 16. 

Just pause for a moment because I have forgotten to say something that I say informally I suppose and it might be important here.  I do not ever use the names of any victims in a sentence.  They are simply referred to as the victim.  That is not out of disrespect.  Of course, I know the victim's name and all their circumstances.  It is out of, I hope, respect because respect for her privacy and her ongoing privacy.  Nothing in these sentencing remarks will ever be able to be used that might identify her but I take it a step further and do not refer to her by name.  So that will become evident.

[1] A pseudonym

2Mr Prior, you have pleaded guilty to four charges of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 and one charge of sexual assault of a child under the age of 16.  These charges arise from your sexual offending involving the daughter of a family friend of yours.  The crimes were committed between

1 July 2017 and 5 May 2018.  The victim was 14 years of age.  You were

24 and then turned 25.

3You became friends with the victim's father in 2013 into 2014.  You visited him and became someone who, in time, shared meals and time with the family as they did various family things.  In short, you were a trusted friend of the family.  The first crime was the sexual assault when you kissed the victim in the kitchen of her family home. 

4About two months later, you picked the victim up from a part time job. 

You drove her to your house.  You and she watched a movie in your bedroom.  You then removed her pants and penetrated her vagina with your penis. 

This did not last long as you realised the time and became worried that the victim would get into trouble if she was not home.  To this point, the victim had not had penetrative sex before.  Later, she felt pain when she sat down. 

This was Charge 2, sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16.

5What followed at a time after this sexual penetration was that you said to her that if anyone finds out that you would be in a lot of trouble.  On enquiry, she told you she was 14.  You expressed surprise and told her tell anyone if asked, particularly your housemate, that she was 17.  You said 'As long as you are 16, it didn't matter.'  By this, you revealed a sharp and accurate understanding of the age of consent.  At this point, you could have and you should have stopped but you did not.

6Later in 2017, just before Christmas, you were at the family home.  A new basketball hoop was being put together.  The victim went to her room to get her basketball.  You followed her saying to her once you were there, 'It would have to be a quick one' as you were to go soon.  You lowered her pants and pushed her into a cabinet.  You put your penis near her vagina and asked her to put it inside.  She refused as she did not wish to touch your penis.  So you put it into her vagina and moved it in and out fast, pushing her into the cabinet.  This was Charge 3.

7Some weeks later, you met the victim after school and walked to your house.  You put her on the bed and lifted her school dress, pushed her underpants to one side and penetrated her vagina with your penis.  This was Charge 4.

8In late April or early May 2018, the victim was again at her house with her family.  She went outside to play with her dog.  You followed her out and told her to go behind the shed so no one in the house could see.  You asked if she wanted sex and she said that she was scared.  This is did not put you off.  Rather, you told her it wouldn't hurt and it would be fine.  You lowered her pants, turned her around and penetrated her vagina, asking her fi she liked it hard or fast or slow.  You heard someone at the door of the house and you stopped.  This was Charge 5.

9At no time during any of these penetrative sexual offences did you use contraception.

10These crimes came to light in May when the complainant told a student welfare officer at her school.  The victim's parents were notified.  The victim's father confronted you and you made admissions to having sex with the victim but only at the victim's house and not at your own.  You later have admitted that all sexual encounters at both houses occurred.

11The victim went to the police on 18 May 2018 and participated in a video record of her statement.  You were arrested and when interviewed, you made no comment to the allegations that were put.  You conducted a committal and ultimately a trial was fixed and there were a number of directions hearings before you entered a plea of guilty.

12Your crimes have had a devastating effect on the victim and I infer her family.  In her victim impact statement, she said 'The first time when it happened, I felt lost.  I didn't know what to do.  I felt hurt and like he had taken advantage over me.'  This I interpolate is completely accurate.  You did take advantage over her.  She said she felt frustrated at the fact that you had the power over her and could make her do things that you wanted her to do.  She outlined at length the impact upon her schooling.  She did not feel comfortable with herself and it really affected her grades.  She could not sleep at night.  She had horrible feelings and this affected her the next day.  Her grades deteriorated.

13She pointed out that she had to go to doctors, police and counsellors, she had to discover whether she had caught any diseases from you and the like. 

She loved her clothes and fashion stuff but all of that has fallen away.  She does not have that sense anymore.  The clothes she used to have at the time feel dirty to her.

14Sadly, she embarked upon self-harming.  It was to make the pain go away. 

It helped a bit with some of the flashbacks but only for a while.  Things at home in her relationships with her parents were not as they had been before. 

She described on a scale of how she is doing, how things are with her family, how she is doing at school and how everything is going as at the very lowest in terms of sadness or near to it.

15The last of these two crimes that I have outlined, that is the last two charges on the indictment, were committed after 1 February 2018 and therefore are offences to which the standard sentencing provisions of the Sentencing Act apply.  A requirement of the Sentencing Act in respect of all matters that come before the court for sentencing is that there is an assessment of the gravity of the offence as well as the moral culpability.  These assessments must be undertaken.  That has the additional requirement in your case because, as

I have said, Charges 4 and 5 are standard sentencing offences.  The other charges of sexual penetration, Charges 2 and 3, are not standard sentencing because they were committed by you before the new regime commenced on

1 February 2018.

16Before moving to standard sentencing regime, I note that the maximum term for all the penetration offences is 15 years and the maximum term for the sexual assault is 10.  As required, I have taken into account the maximum terms for these offences.  These maximum terms indicate just how seriously Parliament views these type of sexual crimes involving children.

17Pursuant to ss.5A and 5B of the Sentencing Act, a court must have regard to the standard sentencing for a relevant offence.  As I have indicated for

Charges 4 and 5, I must have regard and I have to the standard sentencing which is enumerated in the Sentencing Act as six years for those offences seen at the middle of the range.

18Sentencing in compliance with these new statutory provisions has commenced in the County Court in respect of sexual penetration of a child under 16 in a number of other cases.  I am especially assisted by the sentencing remarks and analysis of the statutory provisions by Judge D. Sexton in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Moulden (a pseudonym) [2019] VCC 386, a sentence by him on 28 March 2019.

19Like His Honour Judge D. Sexton, I am also guided by the sentence and the analysis of the statute by Champion J of the Supreme Court in the sentences of R v Brown and R v Richardson.  To quote from His Honour's sentencing remarks, he said as follows, at paragraph 57:

'According to the explanatory memorandum to the Amendment Act [which inserted these provisions into the Sentencing Act] it is clear that the standard sentence for an offence should be viewed as a "legislative guidepost" as to the middle range of objective seriousness of that offence.  As the explanatory memorandum [goes on], "The standard sentence is not the starting point for sentencing, nor does it require two stage sentencing.  Rather, the standard sentence is intended to provide the Courts with a legislative guidepost of objective offences seriousness but is compatible with the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing which has been affirmed as part of the common law in Victoria."'

20His Honour goes on:

'Section 5A(1)(b) and 5A(3) of the Act can be seen to be directed at giving meaningful content to this legislative guidepost.

'As stated in s.5A(1)(b) the standard sentence is the sentence for an offence in the "middle of the range of seriousness," taking into account "only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness" of that offence. Section 5A(3) of the Act provides further, "For the purposes of subsection(1)(b), objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of an offence are to be determined - (a) without reference to matters personal to a particular offender or class of offenders; and (b) wholly by reference to the nature of the offending."

'As stated by Champion J in the recent decision of Robertson in the Supreme Court: "In light of the clearly established legal language of s.5A(3) of the Act, when assessing the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence, a sentencing Court is prevented from taking into account matters personal to the offender, and must determine it wholly by reference to the nature of the offending."'

21However the often stated, as I have said, concept of instinctive synthesis has been preserved, meaning the overall sentence does not adopt a two-tier or staged approach.  What is also clear is that in sentencing you, Mr Prior, for the standard sentencing charges, the standard sentencing must be taken into account as one of the factors relevant to sentencing.  The case is made clear that it is one factor but it is not to be considered to be the dominant factor. 

I must also, when imposing a sentence for a standard sentence give reasons that refer to the standard sentence and explain how the sentence relates to the standard sentence.  Also I must state reasons in a sense that I must do so and imposing if I do, a shorter non-parole period than the percentage fixed or set out in s.11A of the Act.  In this instance, the figure or the percentage is

60 per cent, that is the non-parole period must be at 60 per cent unless I give good reasons.

22Now, this affects the non-parole period that is set in respect of a total effective sentence for all the offences committed by you, that is the standard sentences and the earlier crimes. 

23As the examples of sentences involving standard sentences show, it is not always straightforward in drawing a line as to what is an objective factor of the crime, which excludes matters personal to offender and refers wholly to the nature of the offending.  In this regard, ordinarily a critical factor affecting the gravity or the seriousness of a sexual crime involving a child is the age differential.  Someone's age is a matter personal to them but here I take the view that your age of 24 to 25 and the victim's age of 14 at the time is an objective fact and as I will outline, it is a very important factor in elevating the seriousness of this offending.

24Likewise, particular roles or relationships may be personal to an offender and personal to you in this case, but here I take as an objective fact that you were a trusted family friend.  You were trusted by the victim to pick her up from school or work and socialise with her at your home, Charge 4, without taking advantage of her.  There were some aspects of the breach of trust here but they are not as obvious or as grave as many other examples of crimes of this kind.  So these are objective aspects of the offending.  I have regard to this in determining whether this is offending that sits or where this offending sits and in particular, where it sits relative to the middle of the range of offending.

25I do not agree with the prosecution's analysis that these standard sentences or indeed the other crimes involve considered planning by you.  These were circumstances that you exploited but you were keen to ensure that you were not seen or detected later and in that sense, there is some level of planned consideration.

26There were aspects of your friendship with the complainant that I must consider with respect to the standard sentencing.  The Court of Appeal in the earlier decision of Clarkson made clear that this offence is to protect children, sometimes from themselves.  The Court in indicating that there are quite obviously graduations in gravity that move from a genuine loving relationship between an 18 year old and a 15 year old by way of example.  Any sexual intercourse between those two is a crime committed by the 18 year old but its seriousness is self-evidently at the lower end.

27At the other end of the scale is an exploitative relationship where positions such as a teacher or a sporting coach being much older and with significant influence and power over the child is used to allow the older offender to gain criminal sexual gratification.  That is obviously a much higher level of seriousness. 

Here, the objective circumstances of the standard sentencing offences indicate that while there was a friendship, it could not be likened to the examples given in Clarkson, which was of a genuine, intimate and perhaps longstanding boyfriend girlfriend situation.

28The age differential here is telling and it is telling of a different level of seriousness.  So too the nature of your involvement with the family and the victim.  You exploited circumstances where she was alone with you or you brought those circumstances about.  It was not circumstances where she or both of you sought to be alone together to experience boyfriend girlfriend moments.

29However, the circumstances do not display any gratuitous exploitation of the child or aspects of humiliation or degradation.  You were a little persistent but you did ask her if it hurt or if she wanted sex in any particular way.  These were questions of her but whatever the answers were, they were not encouraging and you went ahead anyway and did so in circumstances where she said that she was scared and the like.

30It is always difficult to fix a particular sentence in a precise spectrum. 

Minds may differ.  The prosecution said this was an example of mid-range offending.  Your counsel said on your behalf that it was lower than that. 

The standard sentencing offending in the case I have referred to of Moulden involved the sexual penetration committed by a 51 year old man of an 11 or 12 year old child who was the friend of the accused man's daughter.  She was there on a sleepover and the accused's daughter was in the room when the offence took place.  Just on that measure, the offending in that case is plainly more serious than it is here.

31His Honour Judge Sexton said, at paragraph 67 in making the assessment:

'In all the circumstances [that prevailed in the case in Moulden] it is my view that this offending covered by Charge 4 [standard sentencing] is below but somewhat approaching the middle of the range of seriousness, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that particular offence.'

32His Honour went on to sentence in that case for Charge 4, he imposed a term of three years and six months.  Each case is different but of course the legislation also requires I consider only standard sentencing when examining current sentencing practices for standard sentencing crimes.

33As to the two standard sentences here, I am of the view considering the objective circumstances by referring only to the nature of the offending and not to any personal circumstances related to you that these examples of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 for below the mid-range of seriousness.  They remain serious, harmful crimes that approach the mid-range of seriousness, but nonetheless, they are discernibly below it.

34As to the gravity of the offending generally, it is, as I have said, serious criminality.  It caused harm to the victim and distress to the family.  The first penetration of the victim was her first time of sexual intercourse.  She was entitled to engage in sexual intercourse after she had turned 16 in circumstances of her choosing.  This was denied her.  You did not use protection, exposing her to the risks of disease and pregnancy, although there was no evidence of frank ejaculation.

35Your moral culpability as I referred to is high as you were told of her age and you knew that it was illegal as does your conduct to hide what was happening shows.  In particular, that you told her to tell your housemate that she was 17.  As I have said, your moral culpability is high.

36As to your personal circumstances, you are now 26.  As mentioned, you were 24 turning 25 when you committed these crimes.  On any view, you have not been dealt an easy set of cards in life.  Your mother had an intellectual disability and both her and your father were alcoholics.  You were the second child in the family.  Your older brother was born with an intellectual disability.  Your mother found it difficult to cope with the circumstances and you were, from an age of one, in effect, handed to your grandmother to be raised.

37Your grandmother also looked after relatives who themselves had serious health problems.  An uncle moved in when you were about seven or eight. 

He was an epileptic and died of causes connected with his epilepsy when you were about 11.  At around this time, a young cousin of yours was killed in a motor vehicle accident, causing great grief in the family.  Then your father died of a heart attack when you were about 12.  Another relative had moved in but he was very unwell with a tumour on his spine.  He was wheelchair bound but you became close to him.

38Following school, you commenced an apprenticeship as a mechanic. 

You hoped to complete apprenticeship and join the army.  At around this time, that is when you were still only about 19 or so, your grandmother was diagnosed with breast and lung cancer.  You were understandably distressed and your general practitioner referred you to a psychologist, Lee Minton.  I take it that is Ms Minton.  I will describe her that way and apologise if I have got it wrong.

39You have seen her regularly over the years from 2012, especially as distressing events arise.  So it was that your grandmother was coping with her therapy and you were able to cease seeing Ms Minton and continue with your apprenticeship through to late 2012 to 2013.  However, your grandmother deteriorated and died in April 2013.  You returned to see your psychologist.  You were distressed, she reports, but coping.  The responsibility for looking after your wheelchair bound uncle fell to you.  Your uncle died in June 2014 and you again returned to the psychologist for treatment in January 2015.

40You had by this point unfortunately lost your job as a mechanic.  I was told you did about two years and 11 months of the apprenticeship.  You were then and had been thereafter unemployed and without family support.

41You were treated for depression and anxiety.  You were at that time in a difficult, longer relationship with an age appropriate partner.  You had two other relationships, one before and that one and one after this offending.

42By the end of 2015, your mental state had deteriorated.  Your doctor changed your medication from antidepressant medication to antipsychotic medication which had troubling side effects.  By April 2017, you were again in crisis as a cousin had attempted suicide and was left in a coma.  You had your own suicidal ideation and depression at the time.  However, you ceased treatment with

Ms Minton around May 2017, just a few months before this offending commenced.

43Ms Minton reported that the next time she saw you was in May 2018 when you reattended in distress as a result of your arrest for these matters that are now before me.  Following that reattendance with your psychologist, your circumstances have not improved.  You have struggled to find work.  You have no family support.  On the contrary, your mother and brother, with their intellectual difficulties, mean that they are difficult for you to deal with. 

You remain depressed. 

44Your psychologist did appropriate testing so as to provide a report to the court.  It was very helpful.  Her conclusion was the results of the assessments together with your own account of your personal history and your history in therapy indicate symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder with mood congruent psychotic features.  Early onset with intermittent major depressive episodes with the current episode being moderate.

45She went on to say in conclusion that you have worked with your doctor and with her to stabilise your mental health, however you remain mentally vulnerable.  Your ongoing symptoms of depression, isolation, suicidal ideation, rumination and poor self-esteem continue to influence your behaviour.  As she said, your symptoms meet the criteria for a diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder with mood congruent psychotic features.  She went on that in her opinion, you have had very little guidance throughout your life.  Your major male role models were men of questionable morality who did not find success in life and mostly died young of their life choices.  Mr Prior has made good efforts not to follow in the footsteps of these men, however without an instilled understanding of guidelines of society and without familiar support, he has made mistakes.  His mental health has contributed to his lack of judgment. 

In the matter that is before the court, psychological symptoms of social isolation and low self-esteem and his belief that he should help others have substantially contributed to his offending.

46The decisions of the Court of Appeal regarding the relevance on offenders' poor mental health to the sentencing task makes it plain that rigor is required. 

The report I received from Ms Minton, a treating psychologist, gives a candid insight both before and after your offending.  It is more helpful and applies more professional rigor than many of the medicolegal psychological reports that I receive on pleas, which necessarily rely on brief and artificial interactions and assessments, hindsight analysis and strained predictions as to the future.

47Here, I can be confident that what you have been through in your youth and early 20s has greatly burdened you by grief, isolation and depression.  To a degree, it explains why you did not exercise better judgment.  Also, I am sadly sure that your time in prison will likely entrench a sense of isolation and hopelessness. 

48These are appropriately mitigatory matters.  They were not put as a formulaic matters which meet particular numbered criteria set out in the decision of Verdins & Ors v The Queen.  Rather, I see it as was said by a Bench of five in the important sentencing decision of R v Storey, that is my sentencing task requires me to look at what you did and why you did it.  Here, your personality and your mental health are not irrelevant to why you did what you did.

49Further, as Storey's case said, I look at who you are and that brings into sharp and mitigatory focus the difficulties you have had and will have with your mental health.  Gaol will be hard for you as you are isolated and depressed.  I have just been told this morning that you have had difficulties in maintaining your medication regime and are yet to see consultant psychiatrists.  It is hoped that that situation improves.

50As to any prior criminal history, looking back at your difficult circumstances as you grew up, it is a wonder that you do not have a more extensive criminal history.  The very limited criminal history involving offences other than sex offences is of very limited relevance, if any, to my sentencing task.

51Although these crimes are inherently serious, I do not consider in all your circumstances that much, if any, weight needs to be given to deterrence to you personally.  Obviously deterrence to others is a very different matter and as I will outline, it has very great weight in matters of this kind and in this case.

52However, to return to matters personal to you, I consider your prospects for reform to be reasonable.  In fact, better than that.  You will need support upon your release from prison which may well come from those that supervise parole if you are granted parole.  I consider your rehabilitation would be best facilitated by a long period of supervision, that is release on parole as soon as possible but those decisions are for others, not me.

53Your plea of guilty came after a trial had been fixed, as I have mentioned. 

It is not as early as it could have been but it nonetheless relieved the victim of the added trauma of giving evidence in a trial saved precious court resources.  Your sentence will be lower because of your plea of guilty.

54I accept the plea and perhaps other expressions to your psychologist and to your very experienced barrister are indicative of remorse and I have factored that into the equation in your favour.

55After gaol terms are imposed for two sexual offences, I must declare you a serious sexual offender.  The effect is the protection of the community becomes the primary sentencing consideration.  I must also cumulate sentences unless I otherwise order.  In respect of that matter, here I will order concurrency, indeed significant concurrency, otherwise your sentence will become at a level that makes it an outlier and there is no need for you to be sentenced in that way in the circumstances of this case.

56I have taken into account what has been said by the High Court in R v MCL and other authorities of the Court of Appeal as to the operation of the serious offender provisions.  I am mindful of Parliament's intent in respect of cumulation, but totality is not totally eliminated.  In this case, it is appropriate to order, and I will order, that there be concurrency in respect of the sentences.

57You do remain relatively young and in my view, considering all of the material, you are not as mature as your age appears.  I keep your age, that is you are in your mid-20s.  I keep this age in mind as my sentence will take some of the best years of your life and see them spent in prison.  However, denunciation and general deterrence are very important sentencing considerations.  Young men must realise that any sex must be with those old enough to consent.  If not, then significant sentences that take into account Parliament's new regime of standard sentencing will await them.

58Of course, the sentencing purpose of protection of the community, as I have mentioned, applies as a primary sentencing purposes for the offences where you are a serious sexual offender.

59I will fix a non-parole period mindful of the provisions of s.11A.  A non-parole period at the figure set in the Act is, in my view, entirely appropriate.  As noted before, it is hoped that you have support and supervision when you are released and for as long as is possible.

60I do not consider a gaol term is required for the first charge of kissing the complainant.  I will impose a fine in respect of that matter as that is the just and appropriate and proportionate sentence and allow you and the authorities to work out how it is managed.

61I will impose sentences sequentially, having read the supplementary submissions of the prosecutor in regard to whether sentences can be imposed in different order so as to deal with serious offender provisions and cumulation in a different way.

62Doing the best I can, I impose the following sentences.  Charge 1, you are convicted and fined $100.  Charge 2, you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment.  Charge 3, you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment.  Charge 4, you are sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment.  Charge 5, you are sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment.  Charge 5 will be the base sentence.  I order that three months of Charge 2, three months of Charge 3, one year and three months of Charge 4 are cumulative upon each other and upon the base sentence.

63If my mathematics is correct, that will be a total effective sentence of five years and three months and I order that you serve three years and three months before being eligible for parole.

64You have already served 12 days in custody.  That figure having been reckoned, I will declare that it is part of the sentence I have just imposed.  I will ensure the declaration is entered into the records of the court so the authorities are left in no doubt that you have already served 12 days of the sentence I have just imposed.

65Had you pleaded not guilty to these crimes and been found guilty of them,

I would have imposed a sentence of seven years with a minimum of five.

66There are other orders that need to be made.  I must make clear that you are serious sexual offender for Charges 4 and 5.  They are, after the imposition of gaol terms and two other offences, being Charges 2 and 3.  I will ensure that this declaration that you are a serious sexual offender is entered into the records of the court.

67There are other orders that I must make in respect of this matter and they involve some documentation.

68The first matter that I must deal with and it involves documents, I must sign a document saying I have given you a document.  You must then sign a document saying that you have got the document.  The key is the bits in between. 

That is the document itself.  It is all about the Sex Offender Registration Act.  By reason of the offences that you have committed, I have no other choice in it, it is mandatory, that you must be on the Sex Offenders Register and you must be on that register for life.

69Now the requirements in respect of that Sex Offender Registration is set out in detail.  They were very considerable and your lawyers will have to take you through them and it is necessary that you consider them very carefully once you are released.  They require you to report to the police and keep the police advised of a very large number of personal matters.  Not just where your address is, but what your car registration is, what your mobile phone is, what every single internet identity you might have, an email, a gaming identity, anything of that kind and whenever it changes, you have got to tell them.  If you do not, and there are many other things, if you get a tattoo, you have got to tell them.  If you do not, then you break the law and by reason of that offence, you are liable to a penalty which can involve and often does imprisonment. 

Read the document carefully.

70Now, as I say, I have got to sign a document that says I have given you a document.  Mr Casey, you will have to take that to him shortly, but can I also just - and get him to sign the document.

71Before we get to that, Mr Prior, an application has been made that you provide a forensic sample.  That forensic sample is a scraping from your mouth so that biological matter can be taken and assessed and analysed and your DNA placed on a database.  I have considered this application.  I intend to grant it.  I do so because of the seriousness of the circumstances warrant the making of the order and the granting of the order is in the public interest.

72Now, you have to understand that the time that the authorities come to take the sample, if you do not cooperate, they are authorised to use reasonable force to get that sample.  The way through it is just cooperate with a swab of your mouth.

73Ms Craven, Mr Casey, did the mathematics add up?

74MS CRAVEN:  I will just be a moment, Your Honour.

75HIS HONOUR:  Mr Casey?

76MR CASEY:  I think so, Your Honour.

77HIS HONOUR:  My staff say it did and they are alert to these things.  I do not want to get it wrong.

78So Mr Casey, if you would not mind just assisting Mr Prior with this particular document which is an acknowledgement that he has been given the requirements and the like in respect to the serious sexual offender -

sex offender registration.

79MS CRAVEN:  Yes, the figures are correct.

80MR CASEY:  Thank you.

81HIS HONOUR:  Correct?

82MS CRAVEN:  It's correct, Your Honour.

83HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  The document has been signed by you, Mr Prior, it has been acknowledged that you have received the notification of reporting obligations and notification of reporting period.  My associate will sign that document and forward it to the Chief Commissioner of Police.

84I think what will occur, Mr Casey and Ms Craven, I think I will await the settling of this reasons and anonymise the accused's name.  I do not think there is really anything else that will highlight.  There is no addresses or places or anything referred to.  It is just in very general terms.  So to that point, it will not be on any portal that we have for people to report it until that is done.  You might explain that to the victim in due course.

85MS CRAVEN:  Please the court.

86HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  Is there anything else required?

87MS CRAVEN:  No, Your Honour.

88HIS HONOUR:  Mr Prior, you can be taken downstairs.

89(Prisoner removed.)

90I am very grateful to counsel for their assistance.

91MR CASEY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

‑ ‑ ‑