Director of Public Prosecutions v Sianas
[2015] VCC 1716
•26 November 2015
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCase No. CR-15-00757
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| DEAN SIANAS |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCINERNEY |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 28 August 2015 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 November 2015 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Sianas |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2015] VCC 1716 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – plea of guilty to intentionally cause serious injury and armed robbery – young offender
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
Cases Cited:R v Ibbs (1987) 163 CLR 447; R v Hall [2010] VSCA 149; DPP v Dix [2015] VSCA 118; Boulton v R [2014] VSCA 342; R v Tsiamas & Kastanis [1997] VSC 194 (21 May 1997); R v Bainbridge, Cullen & Ludowicki (1993) 74 A Crim R 265; Azzopardi & Ors v R [2011] VSCA 372; R v Mills (1998) 4 VR 235; Winch v R (2010) 27 VR 658; R v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90
Sentence:Convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 10 months imprisonment and a Community Correction Order of 3 years to commence upon completion of imprisonment term
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms C. Foot | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Pearson | Greg Thomas Barrister & Solcitor |
HIS HONOUR:
1Insofar as this matter was concerned, Mr Sianas is a young man of 19 and was born on 21 February 1996. He is clearly a defined young offender under the Sentencing Act 1991, as was pointed out by Mr Pearson, who appeared in the plea on behalf of Mr Sianas and appears again today, Ms Foot appeared on behalf of the Director.
2At the time of these crimes, on 23 September of last year, Mr Sianas was aged 18. Mr Sianas at the last hearing pleaded guilty to two charges, set out in Indictment E13340020. The first of those was of intentionally causing serious injury to the first victim, by way of a glassing incident. Such is an offence against s.16 of the Crimes Act 1958. The seriousness of such is demonstrated by the fact that Parliament prescribed a maximum penalty for such an offence of 20 years' gaol.
3Mr Sianas also pleaded guilty to the second charge on the indictment, which is a charge of armed robbery. The implement used to effect the armed was a broken bottle. Such is an offence against s.75A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958. In this instance the maximum period of imprisonment imposed by Parliament, given the obvious seriousness of armed robbery and the deprecation generally of the community of persons who commit such offences, is a maximum of 25 years.
4The second victim was aged 17 at the time and, as a result of this armed robbery, was prevailed upon to give up his wallet and money to Mr Sianas, Mr Sianas' brother and their companion. I point out that these two young victims were both aged 17 and were school students at the time.
5The summary was tendered by the prosecution as Exhibit A. It was agreed by counsel that the facts as presented therein are the facts of which I am to sentence you, Mr Sianas. To say the least that summary does not read well.
6The victims in this case were minding their own business in what is known locally as "Rocket Park." They were put upon by you and your brother. You, for no reason, apart from your own maliciousness, kicked the first victim to the head. You then broke a long necked Heineken over his head. If that is not serious enough, you then thrust the broken bottle into his chin area below his left lip. Such are the acts not only of a coward, but a malicious and violent coward.
7Again, not content with that criminality, you then threatened the second victim with the very same broken bottle, until he handed over to you his wallet. Considering you face a penalty for this offence of 25 years' gaol maximum, the amazing reward for such criminality was $30 and a Myki card.
8You with your brother then fled with another friend, Elliott Gregg. The first victim was left with a jagged cut to his forehead, which was subsequently seen to be a four centimeter laceration and a three centimetre deep laceration of the left corner of his lower lip. He was suffering profuse bleeding and needed repair by a plastic surgeon under anaesthetic.
9Exhibit D were photographs taken upon his admission on that night to the hospital. They demonstrate his state upon admission to the hospital. To say the least, for a person to be rendered into such condition is outrageous.
10Exhibit F were the admission records of the first victim’s time in the Epworth Hospital. As I said, he had a four centimetre jagged laceration to his forehead and a three centimetre deep linear laceration to the side of his mouth. He was required to undergo a CT scan of his brain, of his cervical spine and his face. That scan of the brain showed scalp swelling in the left temporal area, no doubt as a result of being hit over the head by the Heinekin bottle before it broke, together with severe bilateral inflammation of the sinuses of the nose, again no doubt as a result of a combination of the assaults committed by you upon him.
11Exhibit E1 is the report of the plastic surgeon, Mr Ngan. His report notes multiple facial lacerations. Firstly three lacerations to the left forehead, one laceration to the chin, two lacerations to the right lip. I am not too sure whether that is correct, as I perceive it is lacerations to the left lip, and then lacerations to the nose. Each were debrided by operation, as I said, under anaesthetic on 24 September.
12Exhibit E2, which was tendered today by the prosecution provides, to say the least, the very briefest update. The only addition were the words by the specialist as follows: "That the scars not only are lifelong but 'will never be completely healed.'" Fortunately the first victim, as against the last hearing, has consented to further photographs being undertaken.
13Exhibit G are photographs taken approximately at the end of his hospital stay and shortly thereafter of 28 August 2014.
14Exhibit J are the photographs tendered today, which are on the CD, which I have already referred to.
15Unfortunately the copies that were sent to me of those photographs again are somewhat limited in being able to appreciate the circumstances, and I think these copies should be part of Exhibit J as well, Madam Associate. One is required, which I have done today, to look at the CD to fully appreciate, and I make the point that I have already made, one of course can never fully appreciate the extent of scarring on a person unless you actually see it live.
16However that is not possible in this case because as indicated at the last hearing, the first victim has suffered to the extent that he did not wish to be part of these proceedings and I do not wish to cause any further suffering of him. The Crown has done the best it can, suffice to say those photographs show obvious scarring, which given the age of the victim in this matter and his maturing, would be of particular difficulty immediately and may well be too emotionally difficult for him for the rest of his life.
17In that regard it is necessary to look at the victim impact statements, and the first of those is Exhibit B. That was made by the first victim. It seems to me, having re-read that victim impact statement of 21 August 2015 such is a very mature and measured statement. He does not exaggerate the matter as to his embarrassment. In section 2 he states, "I felt and do still feel occasionally embarrassed by the physical scarring on my face which I feel has detracted from my ability to feel normal amongst others. This is particularly so when I try to explain how I received my scarring to younger children at school."
18He goes on to talk about those impacts and completes that topic under "emotional impact" by saying this, "Other than that the event is one of the most traumatic and most unsettling memories I possess and I do what I can to suppress it."
19Coming them to physical impact of the crime, he said, "On the night of the incident I was left bleeding profusely. I particularly remember feeling an intense headache upon waking up early in the morning emanating from where I assumed I was struck upon the head. I needed to take pain killers for my entire stay at hospital for my stay to be physically tolerable. I was unable to eat solid food for five days after the accident." He then talks about various social inhibitions that have come about, but as I say it seemed to me a mature statement.
20Exhibit C was the second victim’s statement. He in emotional impact suggests that the event has forever changed his life and that he was particularly angry that his mate had - to use these words - "been glassed". He goes on to say that ferocity of the attack on his friend and indeed the armed robbery upon him impacted upon him quite emotionally and particularly upon his own family.
21The irony would not be lost on the family and that here obviously is another Greek family who obviously value their sons the same way as Mr Sianas' family is here today. In particular apparently the second victim’s mother has been affected by what happened to her son. It had an impact on him in regard to the completion of his Year 11 VCE subjects to the extent that a letter was filed as part of the victim impact statement from his teacher confirming the impact upon his study of these events.
22It is necessary of course to assess this criminality objectively. The High Court in R v Ibbs (1987) 163 CLR 447 at [452], as commented upon by Redlich J in R v Hall [2010] VSCA 149 at [22] to [24], requires a Court to, within the range of heinousness that can attach to particular crimes, assess the crime objectively within that range.
23The things that stand out about the objective nature of these crimes is the random attack upon innocent persons going about their own entertainment in a local park, the malicious nature of such attack, its viciousness and the fact that it was so sustained, and the fact that it was violence fueled by a combination of Xanax and alcohol.
24The fact that not only was a bottle used to assault a person, but once that bottle had been broken, one imagines over the head of the first victim, that the broken bottle was then further used to inflict the scars that I have referred to upon him.
25The result of such has imposed significant injuries upon the first victim, or did impose significant injuries, again to which I have referred, which lead to life time scarring of him, each of those assaults are also aggravated by the earlier kicking of him to the head.
26Of course unfortunately it occurs in this Court that we have before us more serious examples of this type of attack upon a person. However as best as I can in classifying your first charge upon the scale of heinousness, I would assess it as between mid-range and high. In regard to the armed robbery I assess it at mid-range.
27In coming to the above conclusions as to Charge 1 I refer to the case which Mr Pearson referred me to of DPP v Dix [2015] VSCA 118, but noticing of course the immediate differences that the accused in that case had no priors, and the other difference that unlike Dix your victim offered no offence, even at the most minor, at all to you.
28I also make the obvious point that the references in Dix to which I referred to relate to a lesser charge than you have pleaded to, and that was to recklessly causing serious injury, yours being of course the most serious of these charges intentionally causing serious injury.
29However the process of sentencing is not just the assessment of objective criminality. It also is necessary to take into account your personal circumstances, of which Mr Pearson has been at pains to explain. Unfortunately, Mr Sianas, you are not a first time offender. Indeed these serious offences were committed while you were on probation from an order in the Children's Court.
30Of more concern is if that particular order had been placed upon you on the 11 July of 2014 while you were 18, which was the same age you were when you committed these offences, so that you committed these offences ten weeks after being placed on probation by the Children's Court.
31It is important to understand that such order was made as a result of you breaching an earlier order which had been imposed in June of 2013 which involved you being part of an assault with a weapon which was a black flick knife, and the possession of such weapon. True it is that apparently on the summary it is not sure precisely that it was you who made the threat with such knife, however you pleaded guilty to such offences, albeit by way of concert.
32The earlier offence of which you were dealt with, and for which you were again placed on probation, was one on 9 June 2012 which involved an assault with which is known as a poker. Perhaps more concerning in November 2011 you had hit a person over the head with a full bottle of Carlton Draught; very, very concerning when you take into account what you did, in this instance, some two years later.
33Mr Sianas I point out to you and your family that of course you do not come to be re-sentenced for those crimes, especially as those matters were committed by you when you were defined, certainly the one with the Carlton Draught, as a child. However what is important is that you come before this Court having been given opportunities, which you have not taken.
34Where a person does not take opportunities earlier given, then the flexibility of sentencing in these Courts is limited, especially where on prior occasions you have indulged in similar attacks on people, albeit that you were a child. Such background unfortunately demonstrates even in a person so young, a person who is resistant to rehabilitation and who is inclined to severe inflictions of violence upon people.
35On your behalf Mr Pearson tendered his submissions of 28 August 2015 which were marked Exhibit 1. He also relied upon Exhibit 2, which was the supervised bail report from Jasmin Karikari-Yeboah, who is in Court again today and gave evidence, at the prior hearing.
36You have fortunately since the time of these offences apparently been indulging in counselling. It was the view of Ms Karikari-Yeboah that you had taken a positive attitude, that you had accepted the seriousness of the criminal behavior that you had been involved with, that you had attended some 21 of the scheduled youth justice appointments and your engagement had been positive.
37There was a reference to a secondary consultation with a Dr Narelle Warden, and also of a referral to Dr Wright. Also tendered was a report of Dr Wright dated 27 August 2015, Dr Wright being a child psychologist. That was marked Exhibit 3.
38It is quite obvious that you were initially referred to Dr Wright prior to these offences taking place, and Dr Wright talks of you being involved in four sessions in the period July 2015 through to August 2015 in so far as treatment for your long-term anxiety and psychological support.
39However unfortunately whatever happened in those sessions did not assist you, because as is obvious, you then went and committed this criminality. However I am told that you have continued to be part of psychological interventions overseen by Dr Wright, albeit that I do not have any further update.
40Also tendered in regard to you was Exhibit 4, which is the psychological report of Gina Cidoni, a consultant psychologist, well-known to this Court. That report I think was undated, as seems to be the pattern of some of these reports.
41However it is necessary to read from that report. On p.3 of the report under the heading "health" it is noted that your drug offending led to you having four or five seizures from the age of 18. The most recent was apparently some time in 2004. You were interviewed on 26 August 2015. These seizures apparently are linked to the abuse of methylamphetamine, or what we know as ice, which apparently was known and confirmed by your family as being abused by you from the age of 18.
42You were drinking heavily from the age of 16. You were also a somewhat poly-substance abuser because you advised that you were using ecstasy, amphetamines and methylamphetamine. You were also taking Valium and Xanax without prescription, usually with alcohol, which of course unfortunately was repeated on this night.
43You comment that your ice use was at two to three points a day, costing somewhere between $50 to $200 a day. One worries about that, but at any rate unfortunately it would appear that you stopped taking ice at about the age of 18. However you continued to binge drink with Xanax, which is exactly what you did on this night.
44Ms Cidon’s report notes your supervised bail progress to which I have already referred, that you have been now as part of that progress, partaken in anger management and value sessions, you were getting positive reports from your family, you are working full-time in the family business, and those matters have all been stressed by your counsel.
45The psychological testing indicated that you are what is described of low/average capacity. Your psychological profile demonstrates depression, some hysteria, a schizoid trend related to feelings of alienation, a psychotic trend indicating that you fight against and conflict with authority figures, a demonstration of rebelliousness and hostility towards this conflict, a presentation of a person who is egocentric, impressionable, immature and unreliable.
46In addition to that you have paranoia which reflects such hostility and overt sensitivity and suspiciousness. You have on the anger scale an acute propensity towards explosive behavior. That testing showed that you come into the category of a medium probability of further violent behavior in the next seven years.
47The final opinion is that you are a youthful man operating at below level of intelligence. I am on p.6 now. The personality testing refers to the matters that I have already mentioned and it is suspected that your mental health deteriorated with the onset of the substance abuse.
48It was noted that you have had a positive response perhaps for the first time in your life, since you have been bailed for these crimes, and this may hopefully predict some success of a community based disposition if the Court felt that that such was available.
49A recommendation as to such conditions was that such should include psychiatric management, professional counselling, and albeit that substance abuse is in remission certainly you would need relapse prevention training.
50There was also a final comment that given your immature and impressionable presentation, detainment and/or imprisonment, the two alternatives that have been put to this Court, that this Court has apart from purely a Community Correction Order may damage your prospects of rehabilitation.
51In addition I had the assistance of your father, no doubt which must be exquisitely embarrassing to yourself, having to give evidence about you, and was impressed with his love of you and with his explanation which must not have been easy, of the difficulties that have come in the family. Such was combined with a joint statement which I have also read again, and has been maintained this morning of both Mr Sianas and your mother as to their hopes that this Court would see fit not to impose a period of detention or imprisonment upon you.
52As put by Mr Pearson such is expected given the upbringing that they have tried to give you. As I said, in so far as Mr Pearson's submission is concerned he set out the particular personal factors that I have referred to and are relevant to you, in particular set out in his written statement from paragraphs one through to paragraph 1.7.
53Mr Pearson noted that you had made full admissions and those were referred to in regard to your record of interview in Exhibit A. He stressed the early plea and utilitarian benefit of such, and submitted that such also indicated genuine remorse on your behalf, and that seems to be confirmed by the reports that I have referred to as to the manner in which you have gone about trying to, perhaps for the first time in your life, seek to rehabilitate yourself.
54Mr Pearson submitted that you are entitled to an appropriate discount in that regard, in particular as he set out in paragraph 13. He stressed the fact that you are still classified under the Sentencing Act 1991 as a young offender and the factors that this Court must take into account, in particular the sentencing principles as they relate to persons of your age, and relied on the particular three principles that he detailed in paragraph 17 through to 18.
55Mr Pearson’s final submission, consistent with the oral submission made to me, on the last occasion was that given all the circumstances he sought from this Court firstly a Community Correction Order, which would therefore not involve any type of incarceration. If there was to be incarceration, he sought incarceration within a youth training centre, and in that regard sought the report that has been tendered today under s.32 of the Sentencing Act 1991 and relied upon those considerations.
56And as a further alternative, if a determination was made as to adult imprisonment, suggested that a combined order as envisaged in the guideline judgment of Boulton v R [2014] VSCA 342, that was referred to by Mr Pearson, could be taken into account. Mr Sianas, I accept that your intellectual quotient and your psychological condition, in particular the depression, the anxiety, the hypertension, the schizoid and psychotic trends, and the propensity to explosive violence all call for this Court to give particular and special consideration to sentencing in your case.
57Considerations of sentencing of young men of your age are replete in the reports of this State. An unreported determination of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Tsiamas & Kastanis [1997] VSC 194 (21 May 1997). In that matter the two young men were 17 and had been involved in an orgy of destruction where they had used a large loader to smash though a building site causing extensive damage.
58I point out that both at the time of their offending were younger than you, and neither had any priors whatsoever. The issue for the Court in that case was whether, given their age and the fact they had no priors, there should be any immediate detention imposed at all, that is either at a youth justice centre or gaol.
59As to such consideration the then Callaway JA said as follows. "It's not so much the value of the property damage, but the nature of the conduct itself." It seems to me such consideration is very important in your case. The then Chief Justice Phillips referred to a Queensland Court of Appeal judgment, R v Bainbridge, Cullen & Ludowicki (1993) 74 A Crim R 265, where he said as follows, "There are of course some cases which are so serious that notwithstanding youth and absence of prior convictions the offender must go to gaol."
60Here in your case, Mr Sianas, we are of course not talking about a first offender or a 17 year old, but a person who has relevant legal history, albeit no convictions, concerning violent crimes. A person who committed these particular offences that I am dealing with, ten weeks after being given the opportunity of probation.
61At all times in sentencing a young offender the following principles have to be adhered to, not only those that were referred to by your counsel, but in particular he referred me to the words of Redlich JA in Azzopardi & Ors v R [2011] VSCA 372.
62At paragraphs 30 to 34 His Honour discussed such principles and in particular at 44 said, "The general propositions which flow from these authorities is that where the degree of criminality of the offences requires that the sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community to become more prominent in the sentencing calculus, the weight to be attached to youth is correspondingly reduced. As the level of seriousness of the criminality increases there will be a corresponding reduction in the mitigating affects of the offender's youth, but only in the circumstances of the gravest criminal offending and where there is no realistic prospect of rehabilitation, may the mitigatory factor of youth be viewed as all but extinguished."
63I make it very clear that all the matters that have been referred to by your counsel, and your youth, are certainly matters that I take into account by way of mitigation in this case. I accept Mr Pearson's reference to the important case of R v Mills (1998) 4 VR 235 and the relevance of the principles referred to therein, and his reference to Winch v R (2010) 27 VR 658 to 665, and to Dix, which he handed to me in his summation.
64However, as was pointed out in both Winch and Dix, specific deterrence, general deterrence and just punishment are very important considerations in crimes of this sort. The principle of social acknowledgement of the rights of the victim, as referred to in R v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90, is also relevant here.
65Those very important principles as pointed out by the Court of Appeal have to be balanced against the matters in mitigation that have been put on your behalf. Also in considering this sentence I take into account all the matters set out in s.5 of the Sentencing Act 1991, and in particular that set out in s.5(4)(c) of the Sentencing Act 1991, which came in with the implementation of the current Community Correction Orders, and which says as follows, "A Court must not impose a sentence that involves the confinement of the offender unless it considers that the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed cannot be achieved by Community Correction Order to which one or more of the conditions referred to in sections", et cetera, et cetera, "are referred".
66Mr Sianas, I must tell you that after anxious consideration I have determined that owing to the nature of your offences in the sense as referred to by Callaway JA, your character and past history, in particular as referred to in s.32(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991, that despite your classification as a young offender, and the potential for some undesirable influences in adult prison, I have concluded that it is not appropriate to order you to serve a period of detention in a youth training centre.
67The totality of the criminality to lead me to a conclusion which I think is inescapable. You must and will serve your sentence for these crimes in an adult prison.
68The remaining issue is whether Mr Pearson's alternative submission of a combined prison and Community Correction Order should be utilized. I must say my personal impression of you prior to these offences, and your past behavior, is that for some reason or other you could be described as a particularly spoilt person who has failed to be appropriately disciplined at home, no doubt despite attempts by your family, who has resisted all prior attempts to change your ways.
69Your propensity to violence is very concerning. However your activities since these events and the strong comments made that I have referred to about you, the evidence given under oath by your father that you are no longer abusing alcohol or drugs, confirmed by your mother in the letter that I have referred to, the work stability that you have demonstrated as supported by a letter tendered by your brother today, and the general support of your family at home, indicate that perhaps you are changing your attitude to life.
70It is quite clear that that attitude must be changed dramatically. After anxious consideration, despite the seriousness of these crimes, I have decided to accede to Mr Pearson's submission that there can be a combination of a term of imprisonment, plus a Community Correction Order.
71However I point out, Mr Pearson, that I intend to make the period of imprisonment one that is considerable. It will be necessary for you to consent to this matter, Mr Sianas, otherwise I obviously will not make the order. But it is my intention that you serve an aggregate sentence of 22 months in gaol, and thereafter be released upon a Community Correction Order for three years beginning 22 months from today's date.
72Attached to that Community Correction Order will be all of the conditions recommended in the report that I have received. Given the seriousness of these crimes, perhaps a change in your attitude and the importance of seeking, if we can, to rehabilitate you and give you the opportunity to do that, I have acceded to that alternative submission of your counsel.
73However I want to say this. If in fact that order is made you will never, ever want to come back in front of this Court having breached it. However I cannot make such an order until such is consented to. I will stand down while your counsel talks to you, but I make it clear that I intend to impose firstly a period of imprisonment of 22 months and then a three year Community Correction Order. Mr Pearson, you might seek instructions in regard to that.
74MR PEARSON: I will do that, Your Honour.
75HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
76MR PEARSON: There is nine days of pre-sentence detention, Your Honour.
77HIS HONOUR: Yes, I understand that.
78(Short adjournment.)
79HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Pearson?
80MR PEARSON: If Your Honour please, yes, I have sought instructions so he would consent to a Community Correction Order being made if that was the determination of the Court.
81HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
82MR PEARSON: If Your Honour pleases.
83HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Sianas, if you would stand up please? On the first charge you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 20 months. On the second charge a period of imprisonment of 12 months. I order that two months of the sentence imposed in regard to the second offence be served cumulatively upon the first offence, making an aggregate term of 22 months.
84Pursuant to s.18 the nine days that you have served as pre-sentence detention will be deemed as part service of such sentence and a declaration to that effect will be recorded in this Court. Pursuant to s.45(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991 I, in addition to the aggregate term of 22 months, impose pursuant to such section a Community Correction Order to commence on your release from imprisonment, and such order will be for a period of three years thereafter.
85Such order is to be subject to the conditions as set out in the report received this day, and it is in my view most important that you are well aware of the need for the support and assistance that those conditions will give to you, and of course in the period that you are in gaol you take the opportunity to seek similar assistance while in gaol.
86I should specify those particular conditions. The Community Correction Order not only seek that you are suitable for such an order, but that the following conditions are recommended, which I endorse. Community work which I set at 150 hours over the whole period of the three years, the treatment and rehabilitation for drug and alcohol issues under 48D(3)(a) and (b), in particular treatment and rehabilitation in regard to mental health issues and in your case issues of anger management, and under 48D(3)(f) programs to reduce re-offending and in addition the supervision under 48E.
87Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, which is somewhat difficult when one is taking into account a sentence which takes into account 45(3) and imposes both imprisonment and a Community Correction Order. However doing as best I can to satisfy Parliament it is important to tell you that had you not pleaded guilty you would certainly not have been given a Community Correction Order.
88The sentence that you would have been given would be a period of six and a half years, with a minimum period to serve of three years and six months. Madam Prosecutor, were there any other orders sought, forensic orders or anything like that?
89MS FOOT: No, Your Honour, there was a disposal order that was handed up on the last occasion.
90HIS HONOUR: I have signed that, have I? Yes, apparently I have signed that.
91MS FOOT: No, the forensic sample was taken and it will be automatically retained under the new legislation.
92HIS HONOUR: Do I need to clarify any matters?
93MS FOOT: No, I don't think so, Your Honour.
94HIS HONOUR: Yes, take the prisoner away. Sorry, not yet. He has got to sign this document. I apologise.
95MR PEARSON: Sorry, Your Honour, will Your Honour permit me to approach?
96HIS HONOUR: Absolutely. Just one second, Mr Sianas, we will need the form for me to sign.
97MR PEARSON: Yes, sorry, Your Honour, yes, he has signed that document.
98HIS HONOUR: Mr Sianas, it gives the Court no joy to sentence a person of your age to adult gaol. However as I have explained there was no option in your case given the seriousness of your crimes, but one hopes that the steps that you have shown towards your rehabilitation will continue, so I wish you good luck.
99MR PEARSON: If Your Honour pleases.
100MS FOOT: If Your Honour pleases.
101HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. We will stand down until the next matter.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
7
0