Director of Public Prosecutions v Royna
[2022] VCC 1019
•29 June 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JOHN ANDREW ROYNA |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE GEORGIOU | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 2 May 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 29 June 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Royna | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1019 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – Arson – Plea of guilty –– Pre-meditated offence – Significant property damage – Accused made admissions at the scene of the crime – Reasonable prospects for rehabilitation – Verdins Principles – Combination sentences for offending involving Arson
Legislation Cited: s44(1A) Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169; R v Shafik-Eid [2009] VSCA 217; DPP v Derby [2007] VSCA 92; Tannous v The Queen [2017] VSCA 91; Robson v The Queen [2018] VSCA 256; Salmi v The Queen [2020] VSCA 250; Hach v The Queen [2018] VSCA 196; DPP v Thomus [2019] VCC 1683; DPP v McCarthy [2019] VCC 218; DPP v Forti; DPP v Hargreaves [2018] VCC 938; DPP v Carter [2019] VCC 2243; DPP v Lowe ( a pseudonym) [2019] VCC 1680
Sentence: 12 months’ imprisonment, 27 month Community Corrections Order.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms H Baxter | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms M Brown | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
1John Andrew Royna, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of arson.
2On 7 July 2021, you intentionally and without lawful excuse damaged by fire a building located at 2/43 Henderson Road, Rowville, belonging to Peter and Christine Kollwitz, and the stock and contents of that building belonging to Tiejun Xia. An amended summary of prosecution opening for plea, dated 26 April 2022, sets out the circumstances of your offending.
Circumstances of Offending
3You were employed at Nordic Windows and Doors from 2016 until a date some weeks before the commission of the offence. Your employer, Mr Xia, is one of the victims in this matter. At the time of the offence your employment had been terminated due to an ongoing dispute between yourself and Mr Xia.
4On 7 July 2021, at approximately 4:30 pm, Mr Xia and his wife secured all the doors and windows at Nordic Windows before leaving the factory.
5At about 8:30 pm that evening you drove to the factory premises and had with you a 20 litre container of methylated spirits.
6You forced a lock on a door and entered the office area where you used the methylated spirits to set fire to the office area. You then set fire to other areas including the male toilets, timber storage pallets on the factory floor, stored timber along the western wall of the factory, and in two separate areas in the rear display rooms. You then left the premises and parked your car on the roadway opposite the factory.
7At approximately 8:45 pm you called out to the owner of the adjacent factory, Craig O’Brien, and told him you had set fire to the premises. Mr O’Brien saw the factory ablaze and called triple zero. You frankly told Mr O’Brien that you had started the fire using 'metho' because Mr Xia owed you money.
8As a result of your conduct, the factory sustained significant fire damage.
9Fire Rescue Victoria attended and treated you for smoke inhalation.
10You were arrested by police at the scene and after you were cautioned, you told police 'I warned him, I warned him. He owes me money and has my stuff'. You said you were referring to Mr Xia. You also said you were ashamed of yourself.
11You were assessed by a forensic medical officer and deemed unfit for interview. You were remanded in custody.
12Nordic Windows was insured and the insurance company paid out $29,719 for restoration works to the contents insured under the policy. The factory building, owned by Peter and Christine Kollwitz, was also insured. The cost of repairs to the building to date is $150,241.
Background and Personal Circumstances
13Your personal circumstances are set out in a psychological report of Alison Mynard, dated 9 April 2022, marked Exhibit D1.
14You were born in Finland in November 1961. You are 60 years of age. You moved to Australia with your parents and older sister when you were a young child. You also have a sister 10 years younger than you and who was born in Australia.
15Your father was a heavy drinker and was physically and emotionally abusive towards you and your older sister. Your older sister moved away when she could, as did you, when you were aged fifteen. You told Ms Mynard that the physical abuse included being belted with various objects such as hoses and belts. You said you were physically abused even if you did not do anything wrong. You reported to Ms Mynard that you were always 'walking on eggshells', not sure what mood your father was in when he came home from work.
16In addition to the abuse you suffered at the hands of your father, you also experienced sexual abuse from a family friend and suffered bullying and victimisation at school.
17Your father died approximately 10 years ago from a stroke. Notwithstanding his abuse, in the years before he died you were developing a closer relationship with him. Your mother is now in a nursing home with early signs of dementia.
18Your education was disrupted but you managed to complete the first three terms of Year 10 before leaving school.
19You have been in two significant relationships. The first was between 1990 and 2008, of which there are two children. You do not have a good or close relationship with your children.
20After divorcing your first wife you commenced a relationship with another woman, whom you married in 2010. You and she broke up approximately 12 months before this offence was committed because of difficulties you had with her eldest son. However, you both remain on good terms and have regular telephone contact while you are on remand.
21You have had a number of jobs since leaving school, mostly in window fabrication and installation. You took great pride in your work, which provided you with a measure of self-worth and self-respect.
22You told Ms Mynard that you were managing the service department of the victim’s business but believed you were running the whole place. You felt as though your employer minimised and did not acknowledge all the work you did for him. You were laid off because of the COVID-19 pandemic as the business was struggling financially but you remained with your employer on a subcontracting basis.
Mental Health
23Your mental health history is set out in detail in Ms Mynard’s report.
24You have a lengthy history of alcohol abuse. You described yourself to Ms Mynard as becoming obnoxious and giving people 'an earful' when drunk. Ms Mynard noted that your general practitioner diagnosed you with an alcohol abuse disorder. You have a documented history of alcohol abuse dating back to 2011, multiple hospital admissions, and overdose in the context of situational crises. You have tried Naltrexone without success.
25You also have a documented history of depression and anxiety. According to your doctor’s notes, you were referred for psychological counselling but you were not able to provide Ms Mynard with any detail concerning that counselling.
26Ms Mynard has diagnosed you as suffering a complex post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder (chronic and severe), generalised anxiety disorder with panic, and alcohol abuse disorder.
27Tendered on your behalf was a discharge summary of Eastern Health, Maroondah Hospital. You were admitted at the Monash Emergency Department on
1 July 2021 following a suicide attempt by overdose of various medication. You were not able to identify the factors precipitating the attempt but you did report on interpersonal issues, including arguments with your boss leading up to the offence.28The Eastern Health notes show that you were first registered in 1998 at the Heatherton Hospital. There were then a number of admissions involving intoxication and situational crises. It was noted that you have a long history of alcohol abuse and anger problems and you accessed alcohol services in the past. You have a history of aggression towards others, particularly your family, when intoxicated.
29At the time of your most recent admission you were on medication, including Naltrexone.
30On 2 July 2021 you reported to a Dr Khajehddin that approximately three weeks before your admission, your mental state was getting worse. You were suicidal approximately two days before the admission on 1 July. You said the suicide attempt was an impulsive act in which you collected all of your medication, checked into a motel, and consumed the medication with alcohol. You sent a goodbye message to friends and did not expect that you would be found. Your friends alerted police who tracked you down through your telephone.
31On 5 July, you reported to the hospital consultant that you were feeling much better. You said that you found seeing your psychologist helpful and that you had an appointment on the following Saturday. You also said you were going to contact a counselling service and attend AA meetings. It does not appear that you were entirely frank with the consultant at your review. As I understand it, you were not then in receipt of any psychological counselling. You were discharged from hospital on 6 July 2021. The offence before me was committed on the following day.
32You told Ms Mynard that you managed to convince those at the hospital that you were okay and so you were discharged. You said you continued to feel suicidal and were not thinking clearly when you decided to break into the factory to retrieve your own tools. You told Ms Mynard that lighting the fire was a spontaneous idea, thinking that you might just as well kill yourself with smoke inhalation. However, when your foot caught on fire, you decided leave.
33Ms Mynard was of the opinion that at the time of your offending you were suffering from major depression, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and you had been drinking in the context of an alcohol abuse disorder. All of this, she said, contributed to your poor judgment, inadequate reasoning skills, and an inability to problem solve.
34Your mental health issues have been life-long chronic conditions. You have not committed to addressing them in a therapeutic setting and you have not focussed on treatment for your complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Ms Mynard considers that your mental health issues are quite severe and chronic, and that you have used alcohol for many years in an attempt to cope with your symptoms. Without ongoing treatment, Ms Mynard stated that your mental illness is likely to affect you into the future and that your risk of reoffending will remain moderate. In her opinion, you will clearly benefit from appropriate treatment and that the risk of recidivism will significantly reduce if it be obtained. A protective factor for you is your strong work history.
Prior Convictions
35Your criminal record consists mostly of contravening family violence intervention orders. However, you also have prior convictions for unlawful assault in 1983, threat to inflict serious injury in 2013, and wilful damage to property in 2017. Both the latter two offences, I was told, involved your domestic partner. You have no previous convictions for arson and you have never before been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, save for a suspended sentence imposed
in 2013.
Sentencing Submissions
36In assessing the objective gravity of your offence, your counsel, Ms Brown, submitted that it was necessary to have regard to the amount of property damaged, the method by which the arson was accomplished, and whether persons or homes were placed at risk.
37Ms Brown submitted that your offending needs to be considered in the context of a number of factors including your state of mental health, the fact that your employment was something that gave you a sense of self-worth, your use of alcohol as a maladaptive coping strategy, and that the loss of your employment was a devastating blow to you. It was submitted that there was a steady decline in your mental health consequent upon a loss of those things that gave your life stability, comfort, and structure.
38Ms Brown submitted that your conduct involved a degree of premeditation, as evidenced by the fact that you took with you a 20 litre container of methylated spirits, and that there were multiple ignition points. Ms Brown conceded that your intention was to set fire to the premises and that your conduct was deliberate.
Ms Brown submitted that at the time you offended one of the victims, Mr Xia, owed you money for outstanding work.39Ms Brown relied on Ms Mynard’s opinion that you were experiencing depression and complex post-traumatic stress disorder, which contributed to your poor judgment, inadequate reasoning skills, and inability to problem solve. These factors, it was submitted, are causally linked to your offending. Ms Brown submitted they reduce your level of moral culpability and attract the operation of Verdins[1] principles 1 to 5.
[1] R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.
40Ms Brown also relied on your acceptance of responsibility for your offending and your willingness to facilitate the course of justice. She submitted that in the circumstances, your acceptance of responsibility was somewhat unique. You admitted to Mr O’Brien that you set fire to the factory, using methylated spirits, and that you did so because Mr Xia owed you money. You did not leave the scene of the crime and when police arrived you told them you had warned Mr Xia, that he owes you money and had your 'stuff'. You also told police that you were ashamed of yourself. Those matters, together with your early plea of guilty, it was submitted, are relevant not just because of their significant utilitarian benefit to the Court and the community, but also because they are indicative of your remorse.
41Ms Brown also submitted that you have spared police an extensive and expensive investigation. In addition to your cooperation and remorse, Ms Brown submitted that your plea of guilty has added significance because it was entered at a time when courts are labouring under difficulties as a result of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Consistent with what the Court of Appeal held in Worboyes v The Queen, your plea of guilty should attract an 'actual and palpable amelioration of sentence'.[2]
[2] [2021] VSCA 169, [35].
42Ms Brown submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable in light of a relatively limited criminal history, a demonstrated work history, your cooperation with police, your plea of guilty, and that you have used your time on remand productively, completing a number of courses including in occupational health and safety, first aid, traffic management, obtaining a forklift licence and a construction white card. Added to those matters, it was submitted, is the salutary effect of this being your first time in custody.
43Regarding your prior attempts at therapeutic orders, Ms Brown noted that whilst you breached the Community Correction Order on which you were first placed, that led to the imposition of a further order on 1 June 2017. You did not breach that subsequent order.
44With regard to your prior convictions, Ms Brown pointed to the fact that you have no prior convictions for arson. She also noted that it has been some four years since your last conviction on 1 June 2017.
45Regarding your history of alcohol abuse, Ms Morgan submitted that this represented a maladaptive coping strategy for your many problems.
46Ms Brown also pointed to the fact that you have been on remand since 7 July 2021. Not only is it your first time in custody, it has also been rendered more onerous by reason of the COVID‑19 pandemic.
47Ms Brown submitted that I impose a sentence that involves imprisonment, to be followed by a Community Correction Order upon your release. It was submitted that the sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, just punishment and rehabilitation can be best met with the imposition of a combination sentence.
48Ms Baxter, who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that the principles of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation are the primary sentencing purposes in this case. Ms Baxter pointed to the 15 year maximum penalty as marking the seriousness with which parliament views the offence of arson. Given your criminal history, it was submitted that specific deterrence also has a role to play.
49Ms Baxter submitted that the following factors are relevant in assessing the objective gravity of your offending:
(1) the quantum of damage to the factory and its contents was high, at $179,960;
(2) the act was pre-meditated;
(3) there were multiple seats of fire, and;
(4) the offending occurred in the context of an employment dispute, and a debt owed to you.
50Ms Baxter submitted that the motivation for your offending was that you were angry with your former employer, fixated on what you perceived your boss had done to you, and you were seeking some form of revenge. Mr Baxter disputed that your conduct was spontaneous. She also disputed that your moral culpability was reduced by reason of your mental state. Ms Baxter submitted your offending took place in the context of significant intoxication and anger towards your former employer. She submitted that there should only be a modest application of Verdins Limbs 5 and 6.
51Ms Baxter accepted that your plea was entered at the earliest opportunity and that you are entitled to the additional benefit for the reasons mentioned in Worboyes. She also accepted that your prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable, for similar reasons as those advanced by Ms Brown.
52Ms Baxter accepted that a combination sentence was an available disposition.
Consideration
53
The offence you committed is undoubtedly serious. In my opinion, there was more than just a 'degree' of pre-meditation, as was submitted by your counsel. I consider it was a wholly a premeditated offence. You drove to the premises, taking with you a 20 litre container of methylated spirits for the purpose of setting fire to your former workplace, and you did so, starting a fire in multiple locations within the building. I accept also that your motivation was the perceived mistreatment by your former employer. You were angry and intoxicated. I do not accept that your conduct in setting alight the premises was a spontaneous act, as you told
Ms Mynard.
54There was significant property damage and the value of that damage was high. I have not been told that there were persons other than yourself at risk, or whether homes or other buildings were put at risk.
55I have also had regard to the victim impact statement of Mr Xia. Mr Xia speaks of your conduct having a significant impact on his business. He speaks of receiving an insurance payout of $800 in respect to approximately $100,000 damage to his stock. He has had to change business premises in order to continue trading. However, the impact of your crime extends beyond the substantial damage to property. As a result of your offending, Mr Xia states that he is deterred from helping other people, as he helped you. He has developed a negative view and mistrust of others. He also suffers anxiety and fears about his personal safety.
56I accept that your plea of guilty, entered at the earliest opportunity, provides significant utilitarian benefit. You have spared the court and the community the time and expense of a trial, and you have spared witnesses from having to give evidence. Your plea of guilty and conduct subsequent to the offending has facilitated the course of justice and marks an acceptance by you of your responsibility for your offending. Furthermore, your plea of guilty entered during the currency of the COVID-19 pandemic is worthy of greater weight in mitigation than a similar plea entered at a time when the community and the courts are not affected by the pandemic.[3] I accept also that your plea of guilty is some indication of your remorse. You expressed your shame to police immediately after the event.
[3] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
57As to the application of Verdins principles, I was referred by Ms Baxter to the decision of The Queen v Shafik-Eid.[4]
[4] [2009] VSCA 217.
58At paragraph 26 in the judgment of Lasry AJA, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, his Honour stated:
'There was a link between the underlying psychological condition and the consumption of the drugs, which apparently created a significant disturbance of the clarity of his thought process at the time of offending. Whilst the evidentiary material before the sentencing judge made it appropriate to describe the drug use in which the appellant had engaged over the period leading to these offences as inextricably connected with psychological difficulties which
Mr Newton has diagnosed and referred to in his report, that did not establish that without the consumption of the drug, ‘ice’, the offending would still have occurred on either occasion'.59His Honour further stated:
'In my opinion it was appropriate to limit the effect of the principles identified in Verdins as the sentencing judge did. It could not be said that the appellant’s psychological condition was directly responsible for the offending. For Verdins principles to apply, the appellant had to show that the mental condition had directly contributed to the commission of the offences. The fact that the appellant’s drug taking was a consequence of his mental condition did not establish that nexus'.[5]
[5] Ibid, [27].
60In her report, Ms Mynard stated that:
'For Mr Royna, his fire-lighting may have been a complex reaction not only to the situational crisis, but also impacted by a long history of abuse, his worthlessness and suicidal ideation. Furthermore, being affected by alcohol at the time of the offending, also likely impacted his lack of reasoning skills, and reduction in caring about the consequences'.[6]
[6] Alison Mynard, Psychological Assessment Report (9 April 2022), [68].
61While it is true that your mental health issues, according to Ms Mynard, contributed to your poor judgment, inadequate reasoning skills and an inability to problem solve, I do not consider, on the evidence presented, that they were directly responsible for your offending. The highest Ms Mynard put it was that your fire lighting 'may' have been a complex reaction to the crisis you were experiencing.
62Significantly, Ms Mynard makes no reference to you having gone to the victim’s premises in possession of a 20 litre container of methylated spirits. I do not know whether she was aware of that fact. Ms Mynard does, however, report what you had told her, namely, that the lighting of the fire was a spontaneous idea. As I have already mentioned, I reject your assertion that it was a spontaneous act.
63In my opinion, the offending occurred as a result of your anger towards your former employer who, according to you, owed you several thousand dollars. You were also intoxicated at the time. As was the case in Shafik-Eid, I do not think the evidence establishes that your mental health disorders were responsible for your offending.
64
That said, I accept the application of Verdins Limbs 2, 3, 4 and 5 apply in your case and call for sensible moderation of your sentence. At the time of the offending and even now, you suffer serious psychological disorders, as diagnosed by
Ms Mynard. These disorders are relevant to the type of sentence to be imposed, to the issues of general and specific deterrence, and to imprisonment weighing more heavily upon you than on a person in normal health. I do not consider that Verdins’ limb six has application. Ms Mynard’s report does not establish that there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on your state of mental health.
65As for your prospects for rehabilitation, on the basis that you will remain abstinent from alcohol and obtain appropriate psychological treatment upon your release, I consider they are reasonable. Without appropriate treatment there is a serious risk you will relapse into alcohol abuse and possibly further offending.
66I have received the pre-sentence report of Mr Dhillon of Corrections Victoria, dated 3 May 2022. Mr Dhillon notes that you have previously successfully completed a community correction order and you have, in the past, managed to abstain from alcohol use. You are assessed as suitable for a further community correction order. I have also received a mental health assessment report dated 6 May 2022. It is the opinion of the author of that report that you suffer mental health issues requiring treatment.
67In determining an appropriate sentence I have regard to the need for general deterrence and denunciation of your conduct. Furthermore, given your history of offending, there is also some need for specific deterrence. I accept you do not have an extensive criminal history, and none for offences of this type. I am also prepared to accept that your time on remand has been salutary, thus lessening the need for specific deterrence. You have also put your time on remand to good use. As I have stated, deterrence will be moderated by reason of your psychological disorders.
68In sentencing you I also have regard to your unfortunate upbringing, particularly the abuse you suffered in your childhood and formative years. Ms Mynard considered that your complex post-traumatic stress disorder arises from the various experiences of your childhood abuse.[7] This is a matter that, in my opinion, mitigates, to some degree, your moral culpability. It also increases the need for a disposition to have, as one of its aims, your rehabilitation.
[7] Ibid, [43].
69I also have regard to the fact that your time on remand has, by reason of the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions in force within our prisons, been rendered more onerous than would otherwise be the case.
70As stated, both counsel submitted that a combination sentence was open. I agree.
71The issue to be determined is both the length of the term of imprisonment and the length of the community correction order and what conditions should attach to such an order.
72I am also required to have regard to current sentencing practice in my determination of an appropriate sentence. It is but one of a number of considerations set out in s5(2) of the Sentencing Act to which I am to have regard. To that end I have reviewed a number of sentencing decisions of the Court of Appeal and of this Court.[8] I have also reviewed the Judicial College of Victoria’s Sentencing Manual’s chapter on the offence of arson and the case summaries therein. A review of arson cases shows that the circumstances in which this type of offending may be committed and the sentences imposed varies enormously.
[8] DPP v Derby [2007] VSCA 92; Tannous v The Queen [2017] VSCA 91; Robson v The Queen [2018] VSCA 256; Salmi v The Queen [2020] VSCA 250; Hach v The Queen [2018] VSCA 196; DPP v Thomus [2019] VCC 1683; DPP v McCarthy [2019] VCC 218; DPP v Forti; DPP v Hargreaves [2018] VCC 938; DPP v Carter [2019] VCC 2243; DPP v Lowe ( a pseudonym) [2019] VCC 1680.
73An arson offence is an offence to which Clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the Sentencing Act applies. Thus, a community correction order may be imposed no matter the length of the term of imprisonment.[9]
[9] s44(1A) Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
Sentence
74Having regard to each of the matters I am required to take into account, including the principle of parsimony, I propose to sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 12 months and to place you on a community correction order upon your release for a period of two years and three months. I have come to this sentence, having regard to the significant mitigating factors put forward by your counsel. In so doing, I have not lost sight of the seriousness of your conduct and its impact on the victims of your crime. However, I consider that the community will be best protected with your rehabilitation. I also consider that the objectives of general and specific deterrence, denunciation and just punishment will be met with the sentence to be imposed. I intend to impose the following conditions on the community correction order in order to ensure that you receive appropriate treatment and attention:
75There will be the mandatory conditions that apply to all community correction orders:
· you must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time that the order is in force;
·
you must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by Regulation 17 of the Sentencing Regulations of 2011. That means,
Mr Royna, you must not attend at the Community Correctional Services office under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
· you must report to and receive visits from the secretary or his or her delegate;
· you must report to the Frankston Community Correctional Services Centre within two clear working days of the order starting;
· you must let a Community Corrections officer know within two clear working days of you changing your address or job;
· you must not leave Victoria without first getting permission to do so from the secretary or his or her delegate;
· you must obey all lawful instructions from, and directions of the secretary or his or her delegate.
76The conditions that will apply in addition to the mandatory terms listed are the following:
· you must be under the supervision of a Community Corrections officer for a period of 27 months;
· you must undergo assessment and treatment, including testing for alcohol abuse or dependency as directed by the regional manager;
· you must undergo any mental health assessment and treatment, and that may include psychological, neuropsychological, psychiatric or treatment in a hospital or residential facility, as directed by the regional manager;
· you must participate in programs and/or courses that address factors relating to the offending as directed by the regional manager;
· you must reappear at court for a review of your compliance with the order as directed by this court. You must attend for review on 28 October 2022 at 9.30 am at this court.
77The order will last for 27 months, as I have stated, and commences upon completion of the term of imprisonment.
78I do not propose to require you to perform unpaid community work in view of the time you have already served on remand.
79Mr Royna, before being placed on such an order I need to obtain your consent to being placed on an order in the terms that I have specified. Mr Royna, first of all, do you understand the conditions that will apply on a community correction order that I have read out to you?
80OFFENDER: Oh, yes. Yes, I understand what you've said about the Corrections order.
81HIS HONOUR: Do you understand the conditions that I have outlined?
82OFFENDER: Yes, sir.
83HIS HONOUR: And do you consent to being placed on such an order upon your release from custody?
84OFFENDER: Yes, I do, Your Honour. Yes, I do.
85HIS HONOUR: I need you to also understand that should you breach the community correction order you will in all likelihood be returned back before this court and you will then face re-sentencing, and that may include a direction that you serve a further term of imprisonment. Do you understand that, Mr Royna?
86OFFENDER: Yes, I do, sir.
87HIS HONOUR: Good. What is the pre-sentence detention, please, Ms Baxter and Ms Brown?
88MS BAXTER: Three hundred and fifty-seven, Your Honour, not including today.
89HIS HONOUR: Do you agree with that, Ms Brown?
90MS BROWN: Yes, Your Honour.
91HIS HONOUR: All right. Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act I declare a period of 357 days not including today be reckoned as the period of imprisonment already served under the sentence.
92Pursuant to s6AAA I of the Sentencing Act the sentence I would have imposed but for your plea of guilty is one of two years and three months with a non-parole period of 18 months.
- - -
0
14
0