Director of Public Prosecutions v Sandhu

[2019] VCC 451

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

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-18-01429
CR-18-01430

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

GURVINDER SANDHU
CHARANPREET BRAR

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE O'CONNELL
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 March 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 April 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Sandhu & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:  Causing injury recklessly; Aggravated burglary; Common assault; Damaging property intentionally; Delay; Parsimony; Parity.

Legislation Cited:                   Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991(Vic)

Cases Cited:The Queen v Lowe (1984) 154 CLR 606; Meyers v The Queen [2014] 44 VR 486; R v Galea [2001] VSCA 115.

Sentence:Sandhu – Convicted and sentenced to 3 year Community Corrections Order.

Brar – Convicted and sentenced to 4 year Community Corrections Order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms. K Hamill	Office of Public Prosecutions
For Accused SANDHU	Mr G. Thexton	Thexton Lawyers
For Accused BRAR	Mr I. Crisp	Thexton Lawyers

HIS HONOUR: 

1.Charanpreet Singh Brar, Gurvinder Singh Sandhu, you can remain seated.  You have pleaded guilty to 3 charges of causing injury recklessly (Charges 1, 3 and 4), one charge of aggravated burglary (Charge 2), three charges of common assault (Charges 5, 6 and 7) and four charges of damaging property intentionally (Charges 8, 9, 10 and 11).

2.These charges arise out of an incident which occurred at about 1.45 am on 
28 November 2016. On that occasion you both travelled with four other men in two cars to a park on Halton Road, Noble Park North. From there all six of you walked some distance to the victims’ house at 28 Kernot Crescent.

3.One of the occupants of the house, Lovepreet Singh, noticed some people outside near the front window of the house.  He went outside with three other occupants Gurbir Singh, Sukhjit Singh and Bakhsish Singh to investigate. Earlier that night Lovepreet Singh had seen someone outside the house and had made a report to police about damage being done to his vehicle.

4.Once some of the occupants were outside, they were abused in Punjabi by members of your group with insults such as “Fuck your mother” and “Fuck your sister”.

5.You, Sandhu, then approached Sukhjit and struck him with a cricket bat to the back of the head, knocking him to the ground. When he got up you hit him again to the side of the head. He became dizzy, felt pain to the side of his head and ringing to his ears and, on later examination at Dandenong Hospital, he was found have a small haematoma to the side of his head. It is this incident that constitutes Charge 1, recklessly cause injury.

6.At the time of that incident, the other offenders including you, Brar, pushed your way into the house. You, Brar, were armed with a metal pole and you, Sandhu, retained possession of the cricket bat as you entered the house. That conduct constitutes Charge 2 aggravated burglary.

7.It was initially contended on the plea that other offenders entered being armed with metal poles and planks of wood. I will return to this contention shortly.

8.One of the offenders attempted to strike Lovepreet Singh’s face with a metal pole. He used his arm to protect himself and the blow hit his hand, causing a moderate laceration over his ring finger, mild swelling and minor abrasions over his hand. That conduct constitutes Charge 3, recklessly cause injury.

9.Inside the house Gubir Singh was attacked by three people who wielded a bat and a rod. He used his arm to protect himself from being struck on the head and suffered swelling and small grazes to his arm. That conduct constitutes Charge 4, recklessly cause injury.

10.Another occupant of the house, Nanveet Singh, had remained inside the house throughout. You, Brar, came into his room and kicked him and dragged him into a corner before pushing him into a speaker and hitting him in the stomach with a metal pole. When you were told by Bakhsish Singh that he had not done anything you ceased the assault and went back out into the main section of the house. That conduct constitutes Charge 6, common law assault.

11.The only female occupant of the house, Navneet Singh, had locked herself in her bedroom when your group entered the house. Two offenders started to hit the door to her room and asked her to open it. When she did she was told to go back to sleep. She again locked the door and crawled under her bed because she was scared. She could hear smashing sounds and a lot of yelling outside her bedroom. That conduct constitutes Charge 7, common law assault.

12.As the incident proceeded members of your group ransacked the house upending furniture and smashing various items, including a laptop and speakers. That conduct constitutes Charge 8, criminal damage.

13.When you and your group left the house the windows of the cars parked in the driveway were smashed. These were a Toyota HiAce bus, the damage to which constitutes Charge 9, criminal damage, and a Holden Astra, the damage to which constitutes Charge 10, criminal damage. Parked on the curb in front at the house was a Volkswagen Golf belonging to Gurbir Singh. The windows and bonnet of that car were also damaged and the conduct causing that damage makes out Charge 11 – a further charge of criminal damage.

14.You and your group then fled south on Kernot Crescent in the direction of Eleonora Road.

Investigation

1.Police were called and attended a short time later. One police officer observed two vehicles, without numberplates, in the vicinity of Halton Road with six or seven males standing around the cars.

2.When further police arrived all of those males were arrested. Both of you were part of that group. Several of the men were observed to have what appeared to be blood on their clothing. You, Brar, had small amounts of blood on the leg of your tracksuit pants and you, Sandhu, had what appeared to be blood on the shoulder of the polo shirt you were wearing. Various items including the cricket bat and some metal bars were found in the vehicles.

3.When you, Brar, were interviewed by the police you described the allegations as “absolute nonsense”. In response to the allegations, you said you had no idea what the police were talking about and that you had been at home with friends drinking. You said you had discovered the numberplates gone on your car and had gone out to see who was responsible. You said that the numberplates on your car had been stolen three times and your car had been damaged the previous week, but the police had done nothing about it. You said that if you caught the person responsible you would fix them. When you were told of the damage caused to the victims' cars you responded “bad luck to them”.

4.You, Sandhu, also denied the offending when interviewed. You said you had been at a party at Brar’s house, and that you had been out buying some alcohol. When you returned the others told you to come with them without saying where they were going. At the time you were arrested at the park you said you were “talking and just having fun”.

Joint Liability

1.On the plea Ms Hamill, who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, explained that the Crown was not in a position to say precisely which offender assaulted each of the victims and which offender was responsible for each act of criminal damage. The case was put on the basis that each offender was liable for the actions of other offenders pursuant to an agreement to engage in this offending.

Procedural History

1.Turning to the procedural history in this matter, the offending occurred on 
28 November 2016, at which time, you were both arrested, interviewed, charged and bailed.  There was a filing hearing on 30 November 2016.  
On 24 February 2017 there was a committal case conference.  On 24 March 2017 there was a committal mention, where the matter was listed for a contested committal on 9 October 2017.  On that date, the committal was adjourned because interpreters were not available.  On 
14 December 2017, there was a mention of the matter.  On 10 July 2018, the contested committal was listed.  However, it was resolved on the first day, so far as you two were concerned the matter proceeded by way of straight hand-up brief with the pleas of guilty and the matter was listed for hearing on 
5 November 2015.  On 5 November 2018, the matter was due to be heard in this court for the plea.  However, was adjourned through no fault of either of you.  The matter proceeded before me on 22 March of 2019.

2.You both indicated your intention to plead guilty on the day of the contested committal before any evidence was called.

3.Both of your pleas were conceded, therefore, to be entered at an early stage, although not at the earliest possible stage.

4.The procedural history that I have just outlined also highlights the considerable delay attending this matter and I will return to that delay shortly.

Victim Impact Statements

1.No victim impact statements were provided.

Personal History – Brar

1.Turning to your personal history Mr Brar, you were born on 30 March 1987. You were 29 at the time of the commission of this offence. You are now 32. You have no relevant prior convictions. I was told that you have been dealt with in respect of a drink-driving offence, where your blood alcohol content was found to be .085 and, whilst that offence may illustrate some of the difficulties you have had, I do not regard it as in any way precluding leniency.

2.You were born in Bathinda in Punjab, and are of Sikh background. You are an only child and told your assessing psychiatrist Dr Danny Sullivan that you were brought up in a safe, relatively affluent and non-abusive household. Your father worked as a bank manager and your mother as a teacher in a government school.

3.You were fortunate to have been educated at a well-regarded school in Bathinda, where you completed year 12. You say that you did not have any behavioural or learning difficulties and that you showed aptitude in mathematics.

4.You emigrated to Australia in 2006 to further your studies. You initially completed a course in hospitality management and an advanced diploma in tourism and hospitality. Your intention had been to upgrade to a degree in engineering but you instead bought a Pizza Hut franchise in Keysborough in 2012. Because you enjoyed running this business and because you were successful in doing so, you continued to operate it until 2018. The business employed approximately 20 workers.

5.In addition to running the pizza shop franchise you also worked casually as a security guard at Maroondah Hospital and at a milk factory. You enjoyed that work and earned the respect of your employers and co-workers. You had become adept at de-escalating volatile situations particularly those involving psychiatric patients.

6.It is clear that over a number of years you have worked extremely hard to establish yourself in this country.

7.Significantly in 2012, you commenced a relationship with a young woman who had trained as a medical doctor in India and who ultimately satisfied the Australian Medical Council examinations and is now working as an emergency department registrar in Traralgon.

8.Your partner Dr Gill gave impressive evidence in support of you on your plea. She attested to the accuracy of her written reference where, among other things, she confirmed your remorse for involving yourself in this offending.

9.You had both agreed to work hard for a period of five years before settling down to have a family. Your involvement in this offence has jeopardised those plans. Your security license was cancelled after you were charged with these offences. Moreover, you had to sell your Pizza Hut franchise in order to pay your legal costs. You have therefore lost most of what you had worked hard to establish.

10.It is also the case that you have remained in a state of uncertainty as to the outcome of these proceedings for more than two years. During that time you have faced the very real prospect that you will be imprisoned and lose your right to settle in this country.

11.You now work as a truck driver.

12.The character references from Ms Christine Lucas and Mr Dragan Marinkovic tendered on your behalf also confirm your remorse for this offending, and the significant effect these charges have had on your personal and working life.

13.Dr Sullivan noted that for a period of time in around about 2014 you engaged in some problematic gambling perhaps as a response to work stress. You have stopped gambling now. Dr Sullivan in his report also states:

"Mr Singh Brar has a history of problematic alcohol use, which has been associated with drink driving and with this offence.  He notes a social culture of heavy binge drinking and accepted the significant role of alcohol in the offence, impairing his judgment and perhaps increasing his aggression.  He describes that he has since ceased all alcohol use. There is no indication of other substance use problems.  The appropriate diagnosis is of harmful pattern use of alcohol, episodic, in full remission as set out in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). 

In recent years Mr Singh Brar's lifestyle has involved overwork, separation from family supports including his wife working in rural Victoria and his parents being in India.  Both alcohol abuse and gambling were maladaptive responses to an unbalanced lifestyle.  Mr Singh Brar would likely have met a diagnosis of adjustment disorder, which was mild in severity and which was remitted with the lifestyle changes. Mr Singh Brar has implemented.  These included reduction of stressors through reducing workload, ceasing alcohol use and gambling, and focusing on exercise, relationships and religion."

1.Dr Sullivan concluded that you have a pro-social demeanour and given the absence of other evidence of a propensity to violence or aggression it is unlikely that in his view you would attain significant benefit from any offence specific violence intervention.

2.You were also assessed by a consultant psychologist: Ms Carla Ferrari, who provided a report dated 20 March 2019.  Ms Ferrari formed the view that you had a predisposition to mental health problems including depression and anxiety. These conditions have their genesis, she believes, in the significant pressure and high expectations impressed upon you by your parents, and as a result of cultural and social influences.

3.She also formed the view that you were likely to have been under significant stress at the time of the offending working both as a full-time security guard as well as operating a Pizza Hut franchise with twenty or so employees. Your functioning was likely to have been further impaired by your tendency at that time to drink excessively.

4.Ms Ferrari assessed you as having a low risk of reoffending. She points to a number of what she calls protective factors, such as your previous high level of functioning, the strong and supportive relationship you have with your partner, who herself is a well-respected member of the community, the strong relationships you have with her family, your extended family throughout Australia, your impressive work ethic and the fact that you have been an active member of your religious community. Moreover, your lack of previous and subsequent relevant criminal history points strongly to excellent prospects for rehabilitation.

5.Mr Crisp who appeared on your behalf sought to contextualise your offending by reference to an incident that had occurred a few weeks before the offending when you, your partner and your younger brother and co-offender Gurpreet had been at a restaurant. Three young men at a nearby table swore and were offensive towards the female staff working in the restaurant. You told them to stop and chastised them. Later, the windows of your car were smashed. You believed, in retaliation for the incident in the restaurant. You reported the matter to the police and I was shown a number of emails on the plea where you attempted to follow-up with police as to why the investigation had apparently stalled. It was suggested that in the context of heavy drinking and building frustration with the progress of the investigation you decided to engage in this offending.

6.Your partner Dr Gill gave evidence which supported those facts. A character reference from a Verjot Kaur also confirmed this version of events.

7.Mr Crisp was at pains to stress that the context he described for your offending did not, and could not, justify your actions. The matters were relevant, it was submitted, as demonstrating why you had acted so very much out of character.

Personal History – Sandhu

1.Turning to the personal history of you Mr Sandhu -  you were born on 
15 May 1993. You were 23 years of age at the time of the offending.  You are now 25 years of age and you have no prior or subsequent convictions.

2.You were born in Amritsar in Punjab, being the youngest of two children. You describe your family as being middle-class. Your father owned a small ice cream factory and your mother worked in the home raising you and your older brother. In growing up you lived on an estate where numerous members of your extended family also lived, and as a result you were very close to your extended family, the majority of whom have now settled in Canada. Your parents remain in India.

3.You completed your education in India. The majority of your schooling was spent in a high-quality school where you excelled academically. You completed Year 12 and showed particular aptitude in accounting and commerce.

4.In 2013 you came to Australia on a student Visa with a plan to study and seek better opportunities. When you arrived you enrolled in a Bachelor of Accounting at university but after nine months withdrew from that course because you perceived it as providing only limited opportunities. You worked in a commercial cleaning job to support yourself whilst in that study.

5.You then completed Certificates lll and lV and a Diploma in Automotive Engineering. In fact you worked as an apprentice mechanic for six months, but ceased the apprenticeship after you were charged. You had to find, you said, better paying work to meet your legal costs.

6.In order to become qualified as a mechanic you still need to complete a further six months of practical training which you plan to finish with the same employer once your legal matters are finalised.

7.Over the last 12 months you have been employed as a container truck driver.

8.Character references were provided by Dharam Pal Singh on behalf of the Management Committee of the Sikh Temple in Keysborough and Bishan Khokhar, both attesting to your remorse, the fact that your offending behaviour appears out of character and to your devotion to your faith.

9.You were married last month. You have been in a relationship with your wife Navneet Kaur since 2010. She came out to live in Australia in 2015 and works as a nurse. Because of these charges you have not been able to return to India to take part in a marriage ceremony conducted according to Sikh custom. Ms Kaur also provided a reference in which she confirms the shame you feel you have brought upon yourself and your family by involving yourself in this offending. Your wife remains very supportive of you.

10.You were also assessed by the consultant psychologist Carla Ferrari. After reviewing your history and administering some psychometric tests she states as follows:

"In regards to his general risk of reoffending, Mr Sandhu is considered a low risk, as he has nil prior criminal history, is able to express remorse and displays insight into the effect this behaviour has had on himself and others.  He does not exhibit an antisocial attitude nor have any other risk factors associated with general offending such as an antisocial peer group, there is no substance use and he does not have a history of any violent behaviour.  He exhibits moderate depressive symptoms, as well as some anxiety, both of which appear to be worsening as noted by neurovegetative disturbances resulting in recent accidents anhedonia, even on his wedding day last week and general withdrawal from normal social activities and friendships.  This requires intervention to prevent any worsening of his mental state, which is already compromised."

1.Ms Ferrari suggested that your involvement in this offending appeared to be isolated and uncharacteristic and that your rehabilitation prospects would be much greater were you to engage with a psychologist to address some of your personal issues.

2.Mr Thexton who appeared on your behalf emphasised among other things that your involvement in this offending appears to have stemmed from your misplaced loyalty and allegiance to Mr Brar. He relied on your plea, your remorse, your relative youth, your otherwise excellent character, the delay in resolving these proceedings, the uncertainty attaching to your immigration status and to the productive contribution you have made in Australia since arriving here in 2013.

Prosecution submissions

1.On behalf of the Director, Ms Hamill submitted that the circumstances of this offending required the imposition of an immediate term of imprisonment. She argued that the sentencing purpose of general deterrence is particularly important where a component of vigilante justice was involved in the offending.

2.Whilst there was not any substantial planning involved, the offenders had parked their cars away from house where the confrontation took place, and once at the house had engaged in violence, she submitted, that would likely have terrified the occupants. The damage to property, she also submitted was gratuitous and not insubstantial.

3.That said, Ms Hamill quite properly acknowledged that there had been considerable delay in the resolution of this matter, aggravated by the uncertainty attaching to the immigration status of each of you, that you had shown remorse despite your initial denials and that your pleas of guilty were fairly described as ‘early’ and that this offending was not the most serious example of this type.

4.As I understood Ms Hamill’s submissions, she did not suggest that a term of immediate imprisonment in combination with a community corrections order was not open.

Consideration

1.As to my assessment of these submissions, I accept the prosecutor’s characterisation of the relative seriousness of this offending. Although I do not have the benefit of victim impact statements, I readily infer that the occupants of this house would likely have been terrified by the violence you displayed.

2.Having regard to Dr Gill’s evidence, Veerjot Kaur’s reference and to the account provided by Gurpreet Brar to police, it is uncontroversial that there was an incident in a restaurant of the kind described by Mr Crisp which precipitated this offending. As he rightly conceded, however, that is no excuse.

3.Neither of you should now be in any doubt, that taking the law into your hands is completely and utterly unacceptable. It matters not that you might have been frustrated with the progress of the police investigation. Nothing justifies what you did and the sentence I will impose will make that clear to you, and to anyone else who might be minded to behave in the same way.

4.I should say however that I have had some reservations as to the prosecution submission that this matter can only be dealt with by imposing immediate imprisonment.

Parity

1.The first concern I have relates to the principles of parity and proportionality.

2.The Summary of Prosecution Opening refers to the dispositions imposed on the co-offenders in the following terms:

The six men arrested by police on the night of the offending were all charged:

The charges against Navjeet Cheema were withdrawn on the basis of the “can say” statement he made in August 2017. He was to have been cross examined by the offenders at the contested committal (and was by the accused against whom charges are still pending);

Jagpreet (aka Jagdeep) Singh pleaded guilty to common law assault on the basis that he was in an agreement to go to the house to cause fear or harm to the victims. Summary jurisdiction was granted and the court granted diversion; 

Gurpreet Brar pleaded guilty to common law assault on the basis that he was in an agreement to go to the house to cause fear or harm to the victims, and that he took a cricket bat from the car for that purpose. Summary jurisdiction was granted, and the offender was fined $1500 without conviction; and 

The charges against Jashanpreet Sidhu remain contested (and proceeded by way of a contested committal in July 2018). The matter is listed for trial in 
May 2019.

1.I raised with Ms Hammill what appeared to be a marked disparity as to the manner in which other offenders, in particular Jagpreet Singh and Gurpreet Brar, were dealt with. They were joint offenders who received diversion and a non-conviction fine respectively, and were dealt with summarily.

2.As I indicated above, the Summary of Prosecution Opening alleged that the other offenders entered the house being armed with metal poles and planks of wood. It was also alleged that the Crown was not in a position to say precisely which offender assaulted each of the victims and which offender was responsible for each act of criminal damage. However, I was told that was not the factual basis for the sentence accepted by the Crown in the cases of Jagpreet and Gurpreet in the Magistrates’ Court.

3.The concern these matters raised was that in respect of different offenders, jointly liable, a different and inconsistent factual basis for sentence was being presented. I hasten to add that the prosecutor, Ms Hamill, presented the material that raised this concern with particular care and fairness, which was of real assistance in addressing the problem.

4.It is well understood that the principle of parity of sentence is a fundamental consideration in sentencing. The principle was best explained in The Queen v Lowe (1984) 154 CLR 606. Mason J referred to this policy in the following terms, at 610-11:

"Just as consistency in punishment – a reflection of the notion of equal justice – is a fundamental element in any rational and fair system of criminal justice, so inconsistency in punishment, because it is regarded as a badge of unfairness and unequal treatment under the law, is calculated to lead to an erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice. It is for this reason that the avoidance and elimination of unjustifiable discrepancy in sentencing is a matter of abiding importance to the administration of justice and to the community."

1.It is also the case that where multiple offenders are sentenced a Court is obliged to consider the relativity between all offenders. The sentences need to be proportionate to each other, having regard to the different circumstances of the co-offenders in question and their different degrees of criminality.

2.The fact that different offenders in this matter have proceeded in different courts before different sentencing magistrates or judges renders the application of these principles problematic.

3.In the end, I have formed the view that the circumstances I have described give rise to a real risk that the sentences imposed here, if they involved immediate imprisonment, would likely be disparate, and would likely engender a legitimate sense of grievance in these offenders.

4.Whilst I recognise that you Brar, and you, Sandhu, are more culpable in this offending than Jagpreet and Gurpreet, nonetheless, applying the principles of parity and proportionality as best I can here, I am not satisfied that I should impose an immediate term of imprisonment on either of you.

Parsimony

1.The second concern related to the application of the principle of parsimony.

2.I readily accept Ms Hammill’s submissions that there is a need for the sentence imposed in this case to emphasise general deterrence. I am not satisfied, however, that the only way that the sentencing purpose can be adequately emphasised is through a term of immediate imprisonment.

3.I am conscious of the factors set out in Meyers v The Queen [2014] 44 VR 486 which assist in determining the relative seriousness of the offence of aggravated burglary, and that this is clearly a serious offence, although perhaps not the most serious example. Nonetheless, the matters that have been put in mitigation on both of your pleas are impressive and tend to the view that you have both learned a very hard lesson. I am satisfied that is highly unlikely that you would take the law into your own hands again.

4.The considerable delay in finalising this matter has meant that your futures have hung in the balance for a very long time and that must have weighed heavily upon you. It forms part of the punishment for what you did. Your remorse, your plea and the support you both have from family and friends, are all matters which enhance your prospects for rehabilitation, which I assess as being excellent in both of your cases. These matters very much inform what is a just and appropriate sentence in all of the circumstances.

5.Applying the principle of parsimony as I must, I have formed the view that a lengthy Community Corrections Order with conditions that involve the performance of a good deal of community work and compliance with strict supervision and treatment, would adequately satisfy the need to reflect general deterrence on one hand but also accord weight to the longer term community interest in your rehabilitation.

Sentence

1.I have determined, Mr Brar, that in your case, you will be convicted in respect of all of the offences on the indictment and that you will be sentenced to undertake a community corrections order for a period of four years. I will order that you perform 400 hours of community work during that period.  I will further order, as part of the conditions of that order, that you be under the supervision of the community corrections officer for a period of four years, that you undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol abuse and dependency, for mental health assessment and treatment, psychological, neuropsychological, psychiatric treatment and that you participate in programs and/or courses that are consistent with achieving the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation, as may be directed by the regional manager of the Dandenong Community Correctional Services.

2.I will also order that you reappear at court for a review of your compliance with the order as directed by the court and that you must attend for the purposes of judicial monitoring in accordance with that condition on 3 April 2020.

3.Now Mr Brar, it is important that you understand that you are being required to perform this order over a period of four years and that during that time, you must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned.  You must also understand that you will need to report to and receive visits from officers of the Office of Corrections.  You will be required to report to a community corrections centre within two clear working days of this order.  You will be required to let a community corrections officer know within two clear working days if you change your address, or your job.  You will not be able to leave the State of Victoria without first getting permission from the Office of Corrections and you will be required to obey their lawful instructions and directions.

4.I should explain to you, Mr Brar, that if you were to breach any of those conditions, or if you were to commit an offence during the time of the order, then you would be required to come back before me and resentenced in respect of this order and those offences, as well as any additional offences that may arise.  First of all, do you understand what I have said, Mr Brar?

5.OFFENDER BRAR:  Yes Your Honour.

6.HIS HONOUR:  Now, before you consent to this order and it requires your consent, you must understand what you are getting yourself into.  Now, having explained those conditions to you, are you prepared to consent to undertake that order?

7.OFFENDER BRAR:  Yes Your Honour.

8.HIS HONOUR:  You may be seated for a moment.  With respect to you, Mr Sandhu, you will be convicted and sentenced to undertake a Community Corrections Order for a period of three years and you will be ordered to perform 300 hours of community work over a period of three years.  Just as I have explained to Mr Brar, you will be required to undertake supervision as well and you will be required to participate in programs that address factors relating to your offending as directed by a regional manager of the Office of Corrections and you will be required to reappear before me for the purposes of judicial monitoring on 3 April 2020.  That is a year from now.

9.So that would be the order, Mr Sandhu, but what I must also explain to you is, as I have said to Mr Brar, the order means that you cannot commit an offence during the period of the order, that you must comply with the directions and instructions from an officer from the Office of Corrections.  You must report and receive visits from them.  You must report to them within two clear working days.  You must let the community corrections officer know if you change your address, or your job and you must get permission, if you wish to leave the State of Victoria.

10.In your case, just as in Mr Brar's case, if you were to breach this order, then you would be required to come back before me to be dealt with for that breach.  Moreover, if you were to commit an offence punishable by imprisonment, you would also be brought back before me and you would be at risk of being resentenced in relation to these charges and any additional matters.

11.Now, in a moment I am going to ask you whether you consent to this order, but first of all, I wonder, Madam Interpreter, if you would not mind making clear the matters that I have just canvassed with Mr Sandhu.  Thank you.  Very well.  
Mr Sandhu, do you consent to undertaking that order?

12.OFFENDER SANDHU:  Yes Your Honour.

13.HIS HONOUR:  Yes, you may be seated.  Counsel, I'll hand these orders down.  I'd ask you to have a look at them.  I should indicate and I did not indicate, when I was reading out the conditions, that each of the work components of the orders has in them a requirement, or an order that 150 hours of treatment and rehabilitation satisfactorily undertaken are to be counted as hours of unpaid community work for the purposes of the unpaid community work condition.  That forms part of each of the orders.  I'll hand those orders down and you may inspect them and once you've done so, I'd invite you to have your clients sign them.

14.MR CRISP:  May I approach my client, Your Honour?

15.HIS HONOUR:  Yes, certainly.

16.MR THEXTON:  Likewise.

17.HIS HONOUR: I will make a declaration pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, that in the case of you, Mr Brar, had you, or but for your plea of guilty, you would have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and six months, with a non-parole period of 24 months and I will have that declaration noted in the records of the court. With respect to Mr Sandhu, I would make a declaration pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act that but for your plea, you would have been sentenced to two years and six months, with a non-parole period of 18 months.  There are compensation order on foot.  As I understand it, those orders have been consented to and I will make the orders sought.  Ms Hamill, is there anything arising out of those sentencing remarks that I have neglected to deal with?

18.MS HAMILL:  No Your Honour.

- - -