Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (a pseudonym) First revision
[2021] VCC 1091
•4 August 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| EDWARD SMITH (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 20 April and 17 June 2021 respectively | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 4 August 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Smith (a pseudonym) First revision | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1091 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence - Pleas of guilty - Two charges of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant - Charge 1 course of conduct charge - Complainant natural daughter - Victim adult at time of offending - Pre-text calls - Gross breach of trust - Relentless predatory and persistent behaviour - Exploitation of victim’s vulnerabilities - Number of aggravating features including unprotected sexual intercourse and clear lack of consent - Relevant criminal history - Little insight or remorse - Poor physical health
Cases Cited:R v RLP [2009] VSCA 271
Sentence: Convicted and sentenced to Total Effective Sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years’ imprisonment - Sentenced as a serious sexual offender - 572 days’ imprisonment declared as having already been served as part of the sentence imposed - s. 6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 declaration - Ancillary order -Sex Offender Registration - Life
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr A. Sim (Plea) Mr P. Atkinson (Sentence) | Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Vic) |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Terry | SPA Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1Edward Smith[1], you have pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual penetration of a child or lineal descendant.
[1] A pseudonym.
2The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years’ imprisonment which reflects the seriousness with which Parliament regards the offence.
3Charge 1 is a course of conduct charge.
4You were aged 58 to 59 at the time of the offending and the complainant was your natural daughter, Isabella Smith[2], who was aged 19 to 20 years at that time.
[2] A pseudonym.
5The complainant’s mother, Lucy Robertson[3], and you had four children together including the complainant.
[3] A pseudonym.
6You are the biological father of sixteen children.
7During the period of offending, you were living with your then partner, Linda Robertson[4], who is the youngest sister of the complainant’s mother and therefore she is the complainant’s aunt. You and Linda Robertson have four children together.
[4] A pseudonym.
8Your relationship with Linda Robertson commenced when she was only 13 years old and while you were living with Lucy Robertson. You were found guilty in this Court of three counts of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16 years as a result of sexual offending against Linda Robertson – I was told in the plea opening that one of the sexual assaults resulted in the birth of her first child. However, your counsel told me at the further hearing that this was not the case and that you and she had children together after you were released from gaol and formed a relationship later on.
9In any event, I was told by the prosecution that upon the relationship between you and Lucy Robertson ending, Lucy Robertson refused to allow you to have any contact with any of the four children that you had with her. Therefore, you did not have contact with the complainant for several years. You had very little contact until Christmas 2016. At that time, the complainant attended your home which was then shared with Linda Robertson to celebrate Christmas lunch with their family.
10After this, you and the complainant met on at least two further occasions during 2017 and the complainant attended your home for Christmas lunch that year as well.
11Until early 2018, the complainant lived with her mother in a nearby town. In around January 2018 the complainant had a falling out with her mother which rendered her homeless for a short time.
12You invited the complainant to come live with you and Linda Robertson and your family. The complainant accepted your invitation and in January or February 2018 she moved into your family home. At that time your four children were aged 18, 10, nine and seven and the complainant’s older brother also lived at the house.
13The complainant had a bed to sleep in which was in one of the bedrooms. However, she often chose to sleep on the couch in the living room. Initially, the complainant did not experience any problems with you. You and the complainant would usually walk the younger children to school each morning.
14Whilst living at your home, you and Linda Robertson would often consume significant amounts of alcohol and/or use cannabis. The complainant was often affected by drugs or alcohol as well.
15During late December 2017 or January 2018 before the complainant moved in with you, the complainant’s grandfather, who was the father of Linda and Lucy Robertson, was admitted to hospital for four months and was in an induced coma. In January 2018 after the complainant moved into your home, the complainant and you attended Mr Robertson’s house to air it out. Whilst there you told the complainant that she was beautiful and that you developed feelings for her. You told her that you loved her more than just a daughter and that your feelings for Linda were not as strong as they once were. The complainant told you that she was your daughter, and that it was wrong and nothing should happen for that reason.
16Whilst at Mr Robertson’s unit, you grabbed the complainant and kissed her on the mouth, forcing your tongue into her mouth. You rubbed her breasts, vagina and buttocks on the outside of her clothing including squeezing both of her breasts. You had an erect penis and rubbed it against the complainant’s body, between her stomach and groin. The complainant repeatedly asked you to stop but you did not. You told the complainant that you loved her more than a daughter and that what you were doing was not wrong. You told the complainant that she had a beautiful body and that you loved her and you were losing feelings for Linda. The complainant repeatedly asked you to stop touching her. She then said, “This is disgusting” and gave you a “death stare” which made you stop. You and the complainant then returned to the family home. This incident was not the subject of a charge against you but was led by way of context only in order to place the charged behaviour in its proper setting.
17The complainant felt horrified and disgusted by what you had done, especially as she had trusted you. After this incident, she did not feel comfortable being around you when the two of you were just on your own.
18She did not tell anyone about what had happened at her grandfather’s house due to her fear of becoming homeless again and out of concern for her siblings who were living with you if she was not also living there.
19You started sexually touching the complainant on a regular basis when no other member of the household was present or looking. This included you touching the complainant’s breasts and vagina and running your hands down her back – at first you did it when no one else was around. However, over time, you would sexually touch the complainant when other family members including your young children were at home, occasionally when they were in the same room. Again, this information was led by the prosecution as context information only. Whilst behaving in these ways, you would look at the complainant and tell her that you loved her, that she was beautiful and she had a great body. The complainant told no one about what was happening due to her fear of becoming homeless and out of concern for her siblings if she moved out of the house. This fear prevailed throughout the period of your offending against her.
20In March 2018, the complainant and you walked your children to school. You then returned along the rail trail bike track to the family home. On the way home you insisted that you and the complainant stop in the park area next to the bike track. You then told the complainant that you had feelings for her and that you no longer wished to be with Linda but wished to be with the complainant. You then started kissing her on the neck and mouth and forced your tongue into her mouth. The complainant told you that you were wrong and to stop but you kept going. She froze due to being frightened and in shock. You kept telling the complainant that she was beautiful, had a great body and there was a reason she had come back into your life. You then positioned yourself and the complainant in the park area so that it was less likely for you to be seen by others. You positioned the complainant so that she had her back to you and then pulled down her pants. You bent her forward and inserted your erect penis into her vagina and started to thrust, telling the complainant it was okay and it was not a wrong thing to do. The complainant froze and waited for it to be over. Ultimately you stopped – the complainant was not sure if you ejaculated but thinks that the sexual penetration on this occasion occurred for a couple of minutes. This is the first sexual penetration relied on by the Prosecution in relation to Charge 1, which, as I have indicated, is a course of conduct charge as I have previously indicated.
21After you had sexually penetrated the complainant, she and you walked to the shops before continuing onto the family home. Once home, the complainant had a shower and started to cry.
22In August 2018, sometime after the complainant’s birthday, you and the complainant took your children to school one morning. You led the complainant to a secluded area off the rail track on the way home and told her you wanted to stop and have a cigarette. After you and the complainant finished smoking, you told her that you wished to have sex with her. The complainant did not resist and froze as she did not know what else to do. You moved the complainant to an even more secluded area and turned the victim so that her back was facing you. You sat down on a built-up step then pulled the complainant’s pants down and had her sit on your lap. You inserted your penis into her vagina and were kissing her neck, rubbing her breasts with one of your hands, while your other hand and arm were wrapped around the complainant’s waist. You bounced the victim up and down on your lap until you ejaculated inside her. The complainant thought that this sexual penetration lasted for about five minutes. This is the second sexual penetration which forms part of Charge 1.
23After you had finished having sex with the complainant on this occasion, you and the complainant left. You walked to the family home and on arriving there, the complainant had to clean herself up and wash her underwear.
24On one occasion between July and September 2018, you and the complainant were in the living room of the home. Your children were at school and Linda Robertson was out at bingo. You told the complainant that you wanted to have a bit of fun, which was a phrase you would use to alert her to the fact that you wanted to have sex with her. You again told the complainant how much you loved her and that you no longer wished to be with Linda. You said that you planned to walk away from the family one day and wanted the complainant to join you.
25You were sitting on the couch. You pulled down both your pants and the complainant’s then directed the complainant to sit on your lap. You inserted your penis into the complainant’s vagina and directed her to move up and down until you ejaculated inside her after about 10 minutes. You told the complainant that “it was meant to happen”. After you ejaculated you cleaned yourself up with a towel then handed it to the complainant. One of your children arrived home about 10 minutes after this. This is the third incident encompassed by Charge 1.
26In September 2018 at about the time of your birthday, there was a group of people in the back yard of your house. People were drinking alcohol and/or smoking cannabis and the gathering continued late into the night. Once everyone had either gone to bed or gone home, you and the complainant were alone in the back yard. You told her that you wanted to have a bit of fun and led her to the trampoline that was in the back yard. You directed the complainant to bend over the side of the trampoline. You then pulled her pants down as well as your own pants and inserted your penis into her vagina. You continued to do so for about five to 10 minutes and you ejaculated inside the complainant. This further incident is comprised in Charge 1.
27I was told that you sexually penetrated the complainant (penile/vaginal) on numerous other occasions over the months that she was living at the house with you and your family. On each occasion you would tell her that you wanted to have a bit of fun signalling that you wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. This information was led by way of uncharged acts to place your offending in its proper context.
28One night in late September or early October 2018, the complainant was sleeping on the couch in the living room. You woke her up and you and she went into the kitchen to smoke cannabis together. After finishing this, you directed the complainant to stand up and face away from you. You then pulled down your pants and the complainant’s pants and bent the complainant over the kitchen table. You then inserted your penis into her anus. You sexually penetrated the complainant’s anus causing her pain – she said she felt as though the skin was ripping. Linda Robertson got out of bed and went into the kitchen, causing you to withdraw your penis from the complainant’s anus. This conduct give rise to Charge 2.
29Linda demanded to know what was happening – she went over to you and touched your penis with her hand and smelt it and became angry. The complainant pulled up her pants and ran to the living room where was sleeping. She was fearful that she would be kicked out of your home that night.
30The next day you told the complainant to tell Linda that you and she had only had sexual intercourse on the one occasion, being the previous night. The complainant did this as she still feared being rendered homeless if she told Linda the truth and she also had concerns about the welfare of the younger children if she was not in your family home anymore.
31Linda Robertson did not report the matter to the police. She told you and the complainant that you were no longer to be left together. This caused the complainant to feel some relief. However, Linda’s treatment towards her was “less than warm” from the time she discovered you and the complainant together.
32Initially, the complainant did not report your offending to the police for fear of possible consequences for the family.
33A short time after the last offence was committed, following a confrontation between the complainant, you and Linda in respect of a male coming into your home, the complainant moved out of the family home.
34In late 2019, the complainant attended the Morwell Police Station to report your offending, making a statement in December 2019.
35After this a number of recorded pretext phone calls were arranged between the complainant and you. The calls occurred on 3 November, 13 December and 18 December 2019.
36During the first phone call when the complainant told you that she wanted to talk about what had happened between herself and you, you said that you were stressed out and you were waiting for the police to come and arrest you. You said that what had happened between the two of you was wrong. In subsequent phone calls, you said to the complainant that you were going to prison because she had told the police that you had raped her. You also said you would lose your family over this. You said that you would tell the police that the complainant was using ice and you would do whatever it took to stay out of prison.
37On 10 January 2020, you were arrested and a record of interview was conducted where you denied any knowledge of the offending. During the interview you expressed surprise, telling police that it was the first time you had heard about the allegations. Therefore, you lied to the police.
38Mr Smith, your offending is serious and deserving of a punishment which is just in all the circumstances and your conduct must be appropriately denounced.
39You sexually offended against your own daughter, apparently whenever you felt the urge to do so, exploiting the fact that she was vulnerable as she had nowhere else to live. Although the complainant did not grow up with you as a father figure, certainly, that was your relationship and she came to you when she was in need with you offering to take her in to look after her after she was rendered homeless. I have factored in that your daughter was the age of an adult when the offending took place. However, you exploited her vulnerability as I have described. Further, the first incident giving rise to Charge 1 occurred in the context of the complainant having made it clear before this that she did not want any sexual contact with you and that what you were trying to do was wrong. You were not deterred by her rejection of you but regularly sexually touched her and gave her compliments in a bid to ensure that you could have your way. Before the first incident of sexual penetration, when you were kissing the complainant, she told you that you were wrong and to stop but you kept going. The complainant then froze and you kept going with your advances, sexually penetrating her. Your behaviour thereafter appears to have been relentless although I must only sentence you in respect of the occasions of sexual penetration which are the subject of a charge and I have done so. However, it could not be said that these were the only occasions that you sexually penetrated the complainant as you had penile/vaginal intercourse with her on numerous other occasions over the months that she was living with you and your children. Effectively, you used the complainant as your plaything, to do whatever you wished her to do whenever you wished this to happen. You were her father and she was entitled to look to you as a father figure who would protect her rather than defile her in the way that you repeatedly did. In saying this, I have borne in mind that she did not grow up with you as a father figure in her life, as I have already said. However, you still breached the trust that she had placed in you, a trust that would not had been there had you not been her father in my view. The breach of trust is one of a number of aggravating features in your offending.
40The other aggravating features are as follows:
41You had unprotected sexual intercourse with your daughter on a number of occasions, ejaculating inside her vagina, which exposed her to the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and to pregnancy. Fortunately, it does not appear that either of those events occurred. However, your preparedness to take these risks aggravates your offending. This is especially so in circumstances where you had already fathered 16 children so you well knew that you were rather fertile.
42The clear lack of consent in relation to the prelude to the first sexual penetration which is the subject of Charge 1 is also an aggravating feature.
43In assessing the seriousness of the offending, I have also factored in the duration and frequency of it although again, I must only sentence you and do so in relation the occasions which are the subject of the charge. Further, the complainant was in a vulnerable position and was aged 19 to 20 during the offending period whilst you were 40 years older. The offending did not cease because of some rush of conscience on your part but because your wife interrupted you during the final incident. Your defence counsel did not object to the description of your offending as being “persistent and predatory” which was the description given by the learned prosecutor in this matter in his written submissions.
44I have also factored in that you were prepared for the complainant to move out of the home when you and Linda Robertson confronted her about another male coming to the house. You did so, knowing the extent to which you had offended against her. You also instructed her to lie to Linda Robertson about the extent of your offending which appears to be borne out of fear in respect of the consequences for you rather than any concern for the complainant. I note that in the pretext calls your remarks as recorded in the prosecution opening reflect concern about you and what would happen to you rather than any concern for the complainant and how her life had been impacted by what you had done. Further, your nasty remark that you would tell the police about the complainant using ice does not say much about your moral culpability. Subsequently you lied to the police when they interviewed you.
45There was no psychological material relied on by your counsel or any evidence of any impairment of mental function which might moderate your moral culpability which I find is very high.
46In sentencing you, I have taken into account the victim impact statement which was read to the Court at the original plea hearing. Ms Smith said that when she was 18, she had started to volunteer at an organisation which would be a steppingstone to start a career in disability. She was enrolled to complete Year 11/12. However, since your offending against her, she was unable to continue to pursue her career due to the impact of your offending upon her.
47She said that when she was kicked out of your house, she was happy initially and relieved but she then became angry as she was unable to continue with the plans that she had made to which I have just referred. She was left with feelings of anxiety, worry and feeling safe.
48She experienced trouble sleeping as well as nightmares and there were times when she would wake up crying and in puddles of sweat. During the day she would find herself having flashbacks which would also make her very upset.
49She said that at the time that you were offending against her she was in a relationship and your offending had caused her partner to have trust issues with her as well as doubts about their relationship. She said she was having intrusive thoughts and that your offending had left her feeling disgusted and filled with anger, feeling as if she was reliving the pain all over again. She said that she had been trapped for so long and was unable to trust herself to make the right decisions.
50She said she was not able to mend family bonds so she missed birthdays and funeral events. She had since received medical treatment for depression, PTSD and anxiety. She was receiving treatment before the events but has been in need of prolonged treatment due to the impact of your offending upon her. She said that she felt very hurt knowing that she would never have the father’s love that she had wanted.
51Mr Smith, these are the real effects that your offending has had upon the victim in this matter.
52In sentencing you I take into account your criminal history which has a number of relevant offences.
53Your first court appearance took place in 1997 and comprised dishonesty charges.
54However, in January 2003, you were sentenced in this Court in respect of three charges of sexual penetration of a child aged between 10 and 16. You were sentenced to a total effective sentence of four years six months with a non‑parole period of two years six months, having been sentenced as a serious sexual offender after Charge 2.
55On 5 August 2008, 22 April 2013 and 6 October 2014, you came before the Sale Magistrates’ Court in respect of failing to comply with reporting obligations. On the first occasion, you were sentenced to one month’s imprisonment which was wholly suspended for 12 months. On the second occasion, in April 2013, you were convicted of two charges of this offence and fined an aggregate of $1,000.
56On the third of these occasions in 2014, you were sentenced to 42 days imprisonment but this was wholly suspended for a period of 12 months.
57According to your counsel’s original plea submissions, after your release on parole in respect of the offending against Linda Robertson, you were breached on parole as you had further contact with her. Eventually you were re-paroled and completed your parole in the community.
58You fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender in respect of the offences before me which, in practicality, means that there is a presumption of cumulation in relation to Charge 2. I will return to this aspect a little later on.
59In sentencing you, I am able to have regard to the number of occasions encompassed by Charge 1 as it is a course of conduct charge, rather than a representative one. However, obviously the second charge relates to an isolated instance.
60In sentencing you I allow for a discount which is not insubstantial in circumstances where you entered pleas of guilty on the first day of the committal hearing. The discount would have been more substantial if you had entered pleas of guilty at an earlier stage. However, ultimately you saved the victim and other witnesses the time and trouble of being cross-examined at committal and certainly at trial and you saved the community the time and expense of contested proceedings. In making this determination, it appears that the victim anticipated that she would have to give evidence at the committal hearing. However, the matter resolved on that day. I do not accept that you accepted responsibility at the earliest opportunity as your counsel submitted in his original submissions. However, I make an extra allowance for the fact that the matter resolved during the COVID‑19 pandemic as you have especially facilitated justice in helping to reduce the backlog rather than string matters out. Having said this, you have been on remand for a significant period such that stringing matters out might well not have been to your advantage in any event. Notwithstanding all this, I make the allowance to which I have referred.
61I do not accept that you have demonstrated much in the way of true remorse or insight. It is not axiomatic that a plea of guilty reflects remorse and in circumstances where you lied to the police and treated the complainant poorly in the pretext calls, in the ways I have previously indicated, I make that finding in relation to lacking remorse and insight. Whilst it is true that you said in one of those calls that what you and the complainant had done was wrong, it seems to me that you were feeling sorry for yourself, even threatening the complainant at one stage, as I have said, that you would report her taking ice to the police.
62In sentencing you, I take into account your background.
63You are 60 years of age now and you were aged between 58 and 59 at the time of the offending.
64Your parents separated whilst you were a very young child and you have no memory of your father. You have had no contact with him over the years.
65You were raised by your mother along with five siblings and you are the youngest in the family. You have a reasonably close relationship with a number of your siblings but since entering custody you have not stayed in touch with them.
66You went to primary school in Emerald and did not have any learning, social or behavioural issues. You then attended Ferntree Gully Technical School, leaving after Year 9 to enter the workforce.
67You worked at a potato farm in Emerald for nine years then went on to other forms of employment for lengthy periods. It appears that you have a strong work ethic.
68I understand that you have had a number of relationships during your life, first marrying in 1987 and having four children to that relationship. You then commenced a relationship with another woman with whom you had another four children, with that relationship lasting for about six years. After this you commenced a relationship with Lucy Robertson, the complainant’s mother and the sister of your current partner, Linda Robertson. You and Lucy had four children together including the complainant. You commenced a relationship with Linda after separating from Lucy and have four children from that relationship.
69I was told that you retain the support of Linda Robertson and your four children. I must say that I have a degree of concern about the quality of Ms Robertson support in circumstances where she is a previous victim of your offending and even after learning of what you had done to the complainant, she remains supportive of you. Having said this, at the further plea hearing, Mr Terry said that as at the hearing of the original plea she was supportive of you. However, he had not updated his instructions in that regard. In any event, as Mr Terry submitted, it is better for you to have some support in the community rather than none but in view of Ms Robertson’s apparent attitude towards the complainant and having been a victim of your offending herself, I remain somewhat concerned as to how protective any support she might give you is.
70In sentencing you, I take into account that you are in relatively poor physical health, having been diagnosed with emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and vertigo. I have seen prison records which confirm that you suffer from these conditions and have had ongoing issues with them, although your health is being appropriately managed. I note that none of these conditions were so severe that they prevented you from engaging in repeated sexual activity with the complainant in fairly recent times. However, I allow for the fact that your poor physical health will have made time in custody harder than otherwise and that it is likely that it will continue to do so with the prospect of your health deteriorating, although I cannot speculate too much in relation to this aspect. I have also factored in that you have been subjected to the COVID-19 restrictions whilst on remand and you are likely to continue to be subjected to such restrictions from time to time and no doubt have been in the period between the last hearing and this hearing today.
71I have taken into account that you are 60 years of age and in poor health and have had regard to the matters extracted from R v RLP [2009] VSCA 271 at [39]. I do not regard you as being so advanced in age that there is a real prospect of you dying in prison due to this factor alone but I have borne in mind your ill health combined with your age when considering an appropriate sentence in your matter. In sentencing you, I have taken into account the medical material that was tendered on your behalf which supports the medical matters to which I have previously referred.
72Neither the Crown nor defence were able to provide me with relevant cases which might assist me in determining current sentencing practice. In any event current sentencing practice is but one consideration and not a controlling one when it comes to sentencing.
73In view of the nature of the offending, your relevant criminal history, and the absence of real remorse or insight in relation to the victim but also taking into account your preparedness to plead guilty and your poor health which may well deteriorate, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as guardedly fair. I place fairly substantial weight on specific deterrence and protection of the community. I place strong weight on general deterrence in a bid to deter others from behaving as you have.
74In sentencing you, I have borne in mind your counsel’s submissions in relation to your offending not being of the typical kind in cases of incest – that is, where a father and child have been relative strangers and offending has occurred. I have also borne in mind the age of the victim but there are other matters which are of concern going to the seriousness of your offending to which I have previously referred.
75In sentencing you, you are to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender owing to your prior convictions in 2003. This means that there is presumption of cumulation in relation to the sentence on Charge 2. However, I do not intend to impose a disproportionate sentence in order to protect the community. In my view totality is a principle which can ably be applied to your case. In determining the extent of cumulation as between Charges 1 and 2, I have borne in mind that the sexual penetrations involved the same victim but the anal penetration which is the subject of Charge 2 is different in nature to those inflicted on the victim previously and caused her a good deal of pain. Whilst I understand that various forms of sexual penetration ought not be regarded any differently to one another, this does not mean that there is not a cumulative effect or a separate effect upon a victim when various forms of sexual penetration are inflicted upon them.
76However, as I have said, I am mindful of the need to apply the totality principle. I have arrived at a sentence which in my view appropriately addresses the weight which must apply to all relevant sentencing considerations in your case.
77You are convicted of the offences.
78You are sentenced to the following periods of imprisonment:
79Charge 1 – six years’ imprisonment.
80Charge 2 – three years’ imprisonment.
81I direct that one year of the sentence on Charge 2 be served cumulatively with the sentence on Charge 1 producing a total effective sentence of seven years’ imprisonment and I direct that you serve five years before becoming eligible for parole.
82I declare that you have already served 572 days' pre‑sentence detention which will be deducted from the sentence that I have just imposed.
83If not for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to nine years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of six years.
84I note that you are already on the Sex Offenders Register in relation to your previous offending but by reason of your convictions for these offences, you are to be recorded as a registrable offender for life. You must report your personal details to the Chief Commissioner of Police annually for the rest of your life. You must first report these details within seven days after your release from custody.
85Details in writing of these reporting conditions will be served upon you through your legal representative now by my associate and I will ask your counsel to undertake, he or his instructing solicitors, to provide that notice to you as soon as possible. Do you make that undertaking, Mr Terry?
86MR TERRY: Yes, I do make that undertaking.
87HER HONOUR: Thank you. Yes. We will just provide you with that notice.
88MR TERRY: Of course, Your Honour, assuming that postal service will suffice.
89HER HONOUR: I am sorry?
90MR TERRY: Assuming of course that postal service will suffice given the difficulties with actually - - -
91HER HONOUR: Yes. Yes. And, look, I know that there can be sometimes some sensitivities around prisoners receiving information like that in a custodial setting so it might be you work with perhaps the prison authority in determining the best way to get that information to Mr Smith.
92MR TERRY: Yes, it will be marked - I mean there is nothing on here that identifies Mr Smith. So I expect if it is marked legal confidential and it is sent to the prison and they are well aware of that but I will - my instructors deal these sorts of things.
93HER HONOUR: All right. Thank you, Mr Terry. Is there anything arising?
94MR ATKINSON: No, Your Honour.
95HER HONOUR: No. Yes. Thank you. Now, Mr Terry, did you want to have a word with Mr Smith?
96MR TERRY: Yes, just briefly, Your Honour. Thank you.
97HER HONOUR: All right. Thank you. We will adjourn and Mr Taylor will leave the video on for you to have a conversation and if you could just indicate to him when you are finished but otherwise, we will adjourn now.
98MR TERRY: Yes. As Your Honour pleases.
- - -
0