Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (Jason)

[2021] VCC 2144

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

CR-21-00501

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JASON SMITH

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 December 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 December 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Smith (Jason)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VCC 2144

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:

Catchwords:              

Legislation Cited:      

Cases Cited:

Sentence:                  

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms E. Hill	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R. de Vietri	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

1Jason Smith you have pleaded guilty to two charges of common assault.

2The victim of each of the charges is your former partner.

3At the time of the offending, you and your former partner had been in an intimate relationship for approximately 11 years.  You were aged between 37 and 38, and she was aged between 36 and 37. There is one child from your relationship, a boy who was at the time of the offending about 8 years of age.  By 2008 it would appear on the agreed statement of facts presented to me, the relationship between you and your then partner had broken down. Although you were residing under the same roof, you were no longer sharing a bedroom. 

4The first charge occurred on 22 July 2018 in the evening. You had been drinking during the day and according to the agreed summary, were drunk.  You had run out of alcohol, and you approached your former partner demanding her car keys so that you could go and buy more alcohol.  You needed her keys or the keys to the car that she customarily drove because the car that you customarily drove was fitted with an alcohol interlock device as a result of previous court proceedings relating to your abuse of alcohol.  You demanded the keys so that you could go and buy more alcohol.  As you did so, you grabbed her arm and held it behind her back while calling her a deeply offensive term.  You pushed her against a wall, released her for a moment and then as she said something, you slapped her across the face. She cried.  She still refused to hand over her keys, you gave up and returned to your room. 

5An hour later, you went back to the room and continued haranguing her.  This time she recorded what you said on her  mobile phone. That was played in the course of the hearings before me. 

6The second charge occurred nine months after that in the first half of March 2019.  By then you had moved house, and the relationship was still in that fractured state.  Again, you had been drinking during the day and again, on the agreed statement of facts, you were drunk.  Again, you ran out of alcohol, approached your former partner, who was  sitting on the couch. Again, you demanded the keys to the car so you could and buy more alcohol.  Again, that meant you wanted the car without the alcohol interlock device. As you did so, you grabbed her arm and held it up behind her back while calling her names. It is that conduct, grabbing her arm and holding it up behind her back, that constitutes the second charge of common assault. After you pulled her arm up behind her back your partner said, 'do what you want, you're not getting my keys', you said, 'if you don't give me those keys, it'll get worse'.  She still refused to hand over her keys and you gave up and went back to your room. 

7It was only weeks after that that your former partner made a formal complaint about your conduct to the police. She disclosed the physical assaults that give rise to these charges, and other more serious conduct which gave rise to charges of rape which have since been withdrawn. 

8After the disclosure and before you had been questioned and charged, a recorded pre-text conversation was conducted between the complainant (who was at the Geelong SOCIT office) and you. During that conversation, your former partner said, 'Jason, how many times did you hurt me, physically assault me?  Do you remember the times when you held my arm behind my back, slapped me across the face?  Do you remember that time when I screamed out in pain as you held my hand behind my back and slapped me across the face; do you remember that?', you replied, 'yep'.  The complainant then said, 'you do remember that, so you do remember doing that to?', and you responded, 'I was extremely drunk'. 

9It was not long after that that you were arrested and interviewed. When interviewed, you told the police that you yelled at the complainant when you were not working, but not much.  You said you had mainly kept to yourself, you said you drank a bit here and there, but that you generally drank beer and wine, that you drank half a bottle a night or two or three pre-mix cans.  You said some nights you did not drink at all, other nights you drank by yourself.  You told the police about wanting to access your former partners car because there was a breathalyser in yours.  You denied drink driving, you said the bottle shop was just around the corner, so you would walk there, especially if you were intoxicated. 

10You denied punching your former partner, or ever having been physically violent.  You said that you had yelled at each other, and you denied calling her the deeply offensive term that is bound up in the circumstances surrounding the first charge, and you expressed some uncertainty about an incident where you had sought to borrow her car because of the breathalyser in yours. You denied specifically pulling her arm around behind her, denied pushing her into a wall, denied passing out when you drank and maintained again, that you limited yourself to three drinks.

11You denied drinking to the point where you could not remember and denied ever slapping your former partner across the face.  By your pleas of guilty and the admissions and the agreed facts, clearly many of the things that you said or recounted were lies.

12Your former partner in her victim impact statement said this, 'the physical and emotional abuse perpetrated by Jason had an extremely detrimental impact on me psychologically, it has taken years to come to terms with the fact it wasn't my fault, as this was one of the effects that domestic violence has'. That is a theme we often hear in the courts, and it is one that is well supported by the research. 

13Although your former partner in her victim impact statement speaks of the long-term impact on her of this, it is to be noted that she had the strength and the courage on the occasions when you were drunk, threatening her with violence and actually inflicting violence on her in order to get the car keys so you could drive whilst drunk, she still had the strength and courage to refuse to hand over the keys to you, and to allow you to go out in a car, into the traffic, imperilling yourself or perhaps other people. It is particularly important having regard to your criminal history, that although she may feel unhappy with herself, for having remained in what was clearly an unhappy, and for her, emotionally abusive relationship, she has shown strength that maybe she doesn't give herself sufficient credit for. 

14It is clear that when we are dealing with family violence, assault, accompanied by emotional abuse of a domestic partner, that it is unacceptable behaviour and that denunciation, deterrence both general and specific, and just punishment are significant sentencing factors. Your own plea submissions acknowledged the conduct to which you have pleaded guilty is unacceptable and shameful. The victim and her child – your child too, have a right to live in a safe home, free from violence. This offending breached that fundamental right.

15It is true that there are no lasting physical injuries from these two assaults. The maximum penalty for the charge of common assault is five years imprisonment. In the hierarchical scale of seriousness of personal violence offences in this state, that is one of the lower end of the scale offences, but to say more violence has been perpetrated on other women in other circumstances, is not to detract at all from the seriousness of this offending and this conduct.  So, Parliament's maximum penalty of five years imprisonment is one measure of the seriousness of which the offending is regarded, and of course, it is a benchmark, it provides the outer limit for the worst case of its type when assessing where the sentence for this fits within the sentencing hierarchy. 

16Dealing then with your previous convictions, you have a troubling criminal history. You have two convictions for reckless conduct endangering serious injury, one for assault, two for possession of weapons, a cluster of three firearm charges for possession of an unregistered firearm, when unlicensed, and under the influence.

17Only one of these charges, the one of reckless conduct endangering serious injury is a recent offence. You were convicted of that in 2013.  The remainder of them were all dealt with between 1998 and 2001 when you were between the ages of 18 and 21. There are some other relatively minor charges in that youthful offender timeframe. One of car theft, one of fail to appear, and some minor traffic offences.  Apart from saying, they add to the fact that you do not come before this court as a first offender they do not bear on the assessment of general or specific deterrence and do not bear significantly on any assessment today of your prospects for rehabilitation.  However, you have a drink driving history which I do consider to be relevant, connected with 2013 conviction for reckless conduct endangering serious injury, where you were also dealt with on the same occasion and arising out of the same circumstances, driving under the influence and exceeding the prescribed content of alcohol. It is clear from the recording of convictions that back then in 2013, you were required to have .00 limit when driving, which indicates a past history of drink driving as well. I say that because there is also a long history of you having held a licence, so it is not as if you were a first-time p-plater back then.  You also have an earlier exceed prescribed content of alcohol back in 2001.    

18So, whilst it can properly be said that the offences up to 2001 were offences committed when you were young, and there was no further criminal history or criminal involvement until 2013, and none after that until this, that record does demonstrate a history of alcohol impaired criminal behaviour going back a long way.  I was told the 2013 charges relate to an episode of alcohol impaired driving, which ultimately resulted in a collision, and it was of sufficient gravity that you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment. You were released on parole and served out your period of parole.

19When asked about the previous charge of reckless conduct endangering serious injury and of assault, I was told you were unable to recall the circumstances of the earlier priors. 

20That is also of some concern given that the offences that I am dealing with you for, are offences of personal violence and there is evidence of alcohol impairment. 

21What then, are the matters relied upon to temper the weight otherwise to be given to general deterrence, denunciation, and just punishment. In his very carefully considered written and oral submissions, Mr de Vietri relied upon the following matters.

22First, your age. You are now 41, so a mature adult. Apart from those serious driving and related alcohol impairment charges in 2013, there has been no criminal history since the age of 21, and you have had no further convictions in the over two and a half years since you have been charged with these offences.  As I was just discussing with Mr de Vietri before I started to deliver my reasons for sentence, he informed me on the hearing of the plea that there are some pending charges of breach on an intervention order, but they are contested, and I do not take them into account in any way adversely to you.  So, you are entitled to call into aid generally an adult history of no criminal involvement;.

23The next matter Mr de Vietri relied upon was that significantly, given that these charges occurred in context of intimate partner relationship, you have no previous convictions for family violence, and the relationship with your former partner, the victim, is over. You have suffered emotionally quite significantly, and as I understand it, are seeking grief counselling over the grief of the loss of the relationship with your son. 

24As a result of the charges and what was attributed in the plea submissions to the subsequent involvement of Child Protection services, due to the nature of the more serious charges that were laid and ultimately discontinued, you have been unable to see your son since you were charged.  Despite what appeared to be an unhappy and unhealthy relationship between you and your former wife, I accept that each of you clearly loves your son dearly, and that the loss of contact with him has been a matter that has caused you great distress.

25Next, Mr de Vietri relied upon your past history of solid employment. I was told that you were employed, you have been in regular and good employment up until the time of being charged, but the stress of being charged and the nature of the charges you were facing had led you to be unable to concentrate properly on work and that you have been unemployed since then. Consistently with that, you told Corrections when you were assessed for suitability for a CCO, that you were, now this was behind you, looking to get back into paid work in the sort of work that you had previously been engaged.  So, that past history of solid employment is clearly something that counts in your favour; you have got a good history of that, and you have capacity for employment in the future which is a very positive feature indeed.  I note that in your record of interview with the police, you attributed your periods of excessive drinking with not working.  Now, whether that was temporary or longer-term unemployment, I am not sure, but I accept in your favour that you have had a good history of solid employment, have shown the capacity to maintain employment, that you want to obtain good employment again, and that is a positive factor counting in your favour.

26Next, there has been a delay of over two and a half years, two years nine months I think now, and for all of that time you have had the burden of more serious charges hanging over your head, and the concerns about what would happen were you to be convicted any of those. That clearly is a significant factor. 

27You also pleaded guilty to the charges.  Now, the pleas of guilty came shortly before your trial was due to be listed, but they came about as a result of resolution of some pre-trial arguments, and as a result of them successful negotiations with the prosecution that resulted in the withdrawal of the more serious charges. This is not an opportunistic court door, last minute plea to the most serious of the charges you were facing.  You are therefore entitled to a greater weight to be given to your plea of guilty that would normally be given to one that was offered at the court door, accepted at the court door. I accept that the guilty pleas have a utilitarian benefit. 

28I accept too, that once the charges had been resolved, the matter could have been remitted to the Magistrates' Court to be dealt with summarily, but you made a decision that because of the burden of these unresolved charges hanging over your head for so long and the fact that I had become acquainted with some of the circumstances and had made the pre-trial rulings, that a speedier disposition would be better for you than having the matter remitted to the Magistrates' Court  and facing a further delay. 

29I consider that as these matters could well have been dealt with summarily on the basis upon which they were resolved, that without formally or strictly circumscribing my sentencing discretion, it is a significant factor to take into account in assessing where this sits in terms of the sentencing range available to me. 

30It was also put that the plea of guilty should be given more weight on the basis you could have contested the charges, given the evidence that was available to challenge the credibility of the complainant more generally.  I am not persuaded by that argument because the recordings that were made by the complainant provide solid support for her allegations of assault, and which ultimately, you accepted by the agreed summary of facts, was pretty powerful evidence notwithstanding what damage may have been able to be done to her credit in respect of any other charges.

31It was also put the guilty pleas represent regret, and an acceptance of responsibility.  It may have had some force at the time that the plea was presented, but given the very different circumstances of the offending as you describe them to Corrections, when assessed for the purpose of a CCO, Mr de Vietri sensibly and rightly acknowledged that demonstrated a level of denial of the circumstances having regard to the agreed facts, and in my view that is relevant to the assessment of whether the plea represents regret and acceptance of responsibility. I accept that the plea indicates an acceptance of your legal responsibility, but in the circumstances, I do not consider that it conveys any acceptance of any moral responsibility or an expression of regret for the conduct itself as opposed to the circumstances you find yourself in and the consequences of the complainant going to the police.

32Having said that, I want to make it very clear that you are not punished for that.  Expressions of remorse or regret may be relevant to an assessment of a person's prospects for rehabilitation, but you are not to be punished, and I am not punishing you for an absence of regret, or an absence of shouldering moral responsibility for what you have done. I do accept that the pleas have significant utilitarian benefit, not only because they have spared the complainant the ordeal of having to give evidence, to face the indignity of being cross-examined, to have to re-live the events, and to have those distressing recordings played again in her presence, but also, that in these Covid times, the sparing of a trial is a significant factor indeed, that must be given weight and more weight than normally what a plea of guilty would.  So, all of those matters I take into account. 

33Mr de Vietri submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation were fair given your guilty pleas, your past history up until the time you have been charged, solid employment prospects, the absence of prior convictions for family violence, what you instructed were significant advances in overcoming your issues with abuse of alcohol, your desire to return to work and your desire to re-establish a relationship with your son. 

34I accept his assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation as being fair, and save for the reservations which I will expand on in a moment about the extent to which your problems with alcohol have been addressed, I accept all of the matters relied upon by Mr de Vietri as to your prospects of rehabilitation. 

35In his written and oral submissions, Mr de Vietri submitted that the appropriate disposition of these charges, having regard to where they sat on the scale of family violence offences, the two years and nine months since you were charged, the burden of having the more serious charges hanging over your head, and the absence of any conviction in the intervening time, was a fine or an adjourned undertaking. 

36He submitted that you had in effect, been under a CCO or an adjourned undertaking for the bulk of the time that you have been charged.  As I discussed with him in the course of the plea, I considered both a fine and an adjourned undertaking inadequate and insufficiently marked the seriousness of the offending, or gave proper weight both to general and specific deterrence. 

37Given the evidence of the role your alcohol use played in the offending itself, my concerns about the absence of anything other than self-report to identify what you have done to address your alcohol use, and what appeared to be evidence of significant minimisation of your drinking, its role in the offending, and your drinking generally and its role in your life, and the absence of any engagement in treatment to date, or firm promise to do so in the future, I had no confidence that an adjourned undertaking, even with conditions about engaging in treatment would provide sufficient confidence that you would acknowledge your problems with alcohol and engage in treatment. 

38Not all of this is your fault, your history of alcohol exposure started when you were a  baby. You report your father was an alcoholic, your parent's relationship was very difficult and when you were only very young, you ended up being left in the care of the alcoholic father.  You report that he fed you alcohol in your baby's bottle. He was also violent, breaking your nose by the time you were 12. You spent time being brought up by grandparents rather than either parent because neither was able to properly care for you. You have been exposed to others alcohol use from your very early days and that is not a good way to set a person up in life. 

39It was put that you had struggled with alcohol abuse at times in your relationship, including at the time of your offending behaviour. You explained that your 2013 charges for reckless conduct endangering serious injury and the related drink driving charges occurred as a result of your drinking because you were upset at being retrenched and then made a stupid decision to drive. That sounds like a disturbing minimisation to me, although I cannot form a concluded view about that.  The history given on the plea of your drinking adds to my concerns about the extent of your drinking, how much it is a problem, and your minimisation of it. In written submissions, Mr de Vietri stated,

“Mr Smith started drinking about age 16 or 17. He did not drink regularly to start with. When he started working his alcohol consumption increased as it was part  of his work culture. Despite drinking heavily, he was able to maintain long-term work and drive to work each day. He acknowledges that the offending he has pleaded guilty to occurred whilst disinhibited by the effects of alcohol intoxication." 

40I interpolate there to say having heard the recordings, you were excessively drunk, you could barely speak. The submission went on,

"He now drinks moderately. He does not drink every day and when he does drink, he drinks no more than two to three glasses. He estimated he drinks three out of seven days in a week “

41That was consistent with what you told the police in interview, and that seems to be at odds with the description of the offending behaviour. There is a real concern from my point of view, as to whether you are frank about the amount of your drinking, the role it has played in the past and  the role it has played in this offending. 

42I am worried that there is no evidence of you having engaged in treatment.  What was put on the plea about you reducing your drinking, and the amount you drink is self-report only.  That you gave the same quantities you told the police you consumed suggests there is a high level of denial.That gives rise to concern. 

43My concern about the minimisation of the drinking and the resistance to treatment is borne out by what you said in the course of the assessment for suitability for the Community Correction order. You told the assessor that the charges arose out of stopping the victim buying drugs or because you believed she had taken your car, and yet, in the agreed summary as I have detailed, acknowledges that the victim was stopping you from driving to buy the alcohol when you were already clearly very drunk. 

44The other thing that you told the assessor that gives concern about your minimisation and resistance to treatment is the initial resistance to being able to comply with a CCO if you obtained, as you hope to, full-time employment again. The placing of potential employment as a barrier to compliance with a CCO ultimately appears to be a reluctance to prioritise CCO conditions over work if you get a job. That also gives rise to a concern about minimisation and resistance to treatment.

45The CCO assessment and the MHARS report that was provided after you were referred for a mental health assessment after you disclosed a previous diagnosis of bipolar disorder, PTSD and unresolved grief also raise these matters of concern.  First, you were assessed as at high-risk of offending as has been discussed in the course of submissions immediately before sentencing.  I do not take as binding on me that assessment of high-risk of offending. I do accept the factors identified by the assessor as being relevant to the assessment of your risk and I make my own assessment of that. Ultimately, it may not be a matter of putting a label on it, whether it is low, medium or high. What I would say is those factors are all significant in assessing your risk of reoffending. 

46You have a reported history of bipolar disorder and PTSD, and a reported history of long-term marijuana use as well as alcohol. Those clearly are matters relevant to my assessment of your risk of reoffending and of the need for rehabilitative based treatment to assess those underlying causes, and to protect against the risk of re-offending. 

47Nothing in the assessments allays my concerns about the minimisation of  the extent of your alcohol intake, and in my view, that is one of the most significant factors determining what is the appropriate outcome.  As I discussed with Mr de Vietri on the last occasion, it was my view that a CCO was appropriate because it had a combination of punitive, but more importantly, rehabilitative conditions that would be designed to address the underlying causes of the offending, and therefore protect against the risk of re-offending.  My view remains the same after receiving the assessment reports and hearing the further submissions from Mr de Vietri.

48A CCO is both a punishment and an encourager of rehabilitation and I am confirmed in my view that it is indeed the appropriate outcome. I am also confirmed in my view, notwithstanding the different account you gave of the offending and my concerns about minimisation of your drinking, that the emphasis should be on rehabilitation rather than punishment. 

49Consistently with that, I propose as I had indicated I was considering, to include a modest number of hours of unpaid community work. That is usually being regarded as the punitive aspect of a CCO. I am directing that all hours of treatment and rehabilitation successfully undertaken be counted as hours of unpaid community work. So it is my expectation that you will not be required to undertake any unpaid community work of itself, that the treatment conditions imposed will cover that 50 hours.

50I am also satisfied, having regard to the reports, that it is important to impose the rehabilitative conditions in a way that will ensure that rehabilitation can be achieved. For that reason, although not allowing the length of time ordinarily required for treatment to drive my determination of what the appropriate length of an order is, I consider that in the circumstances, including the minimisation and the different account of the offending you gave, a CCO of 18 months length is appropriate. That is what I propose to do.

51I propose to impose a CCO with conditions of supervision, treatment and rehabilitation for substance abuse as recommended by Corrections. The substance abuse condition is  because of your marijuana use as well as alcohol, and because of the clear role alcohol played in this offending and the disclosure or the evidence about the alcohol use. 

52Also, mental health assessment and treatment as recommended by the MHARS report, because if that is unaddressed, then it is much more likely that alcohol or drugs will predispose you to further offending and hold up your rehabilitation. 

53Also, to participate in programs or courses that address factors relating to the offending as directed by the regional manager. Although that does not specify it, respectful relationships and anger management are the courses that I consider are likely to be appropriate and that you should be assessed for suitability for. 

54I have addressed the number of hours of unpaid community work. I have indicated it is 50 hours, but that should be offset by the hours engaged in treatment.

55So, I can't impose a CCO, Mr Smith, unless you consent. Are you prepared to consent to an 18-month CCO with those rehabilitative conditions that I have outlined, drug treatment, alcohol treatment, mental health treatment and programs to reduce re-offending?

56OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

57HER HONOUR:   Thank you.  In that case, Jason Smith, on the two charges of common assault to which you have pleaded guilty, you are convicted and sentenced to be placed on a Community Correction Order for a period of 18 months commencing today 15 December 2021 and ending on 14 June 2023.  You must attend at the Geelong Community Correctional Services offices, State Government Offices, Level 5/38 Little Malop Street Geelong within two clear working days after the commencement of this order. Today is Tuesday, that means you have got to do it tomorrow or Thursday.  There are mandatory terms that apply to all Community Correction Orders. They are:

(i)That you must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time this order is enforced.

(ii)You must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by regulation 17 of the Sentencing Regulations. That means you must not be impaired by drugs or alcohol when you attend on Corrections or at any rehabilitative programs directed by Corrections, and you must submit to drug and alcohol testing if directed to do so.

(iii)You must report to and receive visits from the secretary or delegate.

(iv)You must report to the Geelong Community Correctional Services centre, as I said, within two weekdays.

(v)You must let a Community Corrections Officer know within two clear working days if you change your address or your job.

(vi)You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission to do from the secretary or delegate.

(vii)You must obey all lawful instructions from and directions of the secretary or delegate.

In addition to those mandatory terms that are part of all CCOs, I impose the following conditions tailored to your needs and to the offending:

(viii)You must perform 50 hours of unpaid community work over that period of 18 months as directed by the regional manager.  I order that all 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. If you fail to comply with this condition in relation to unpaid community work, the Secretary to the Department of Justice or their delegate may give you a direction to perform additional hours of unpaid community work in accordance with s.83AUof the Sentencing Act.

(ix)You must be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer for the period of 18 months.

(x)You must undergo assessment and treatment, including testing for drug abuse or dependency, as directed by the regional manager.

(xi)You must undergo assessment and treatment, including testing for alcohol abuse or dependency as directed by the regional manager.

(xii)You must undergo any mental health assessment and treatment, and that may include psychological, neuropsychological, or psychiatric treatment or treatment in a hospital or residential facility as directed by the regional manager.

(xiii)You must participate in programs and/or courses that address factors relating to the offending as directed by the regional manager.

58Now, Mr Smith, do you understand the effect of the conditions of this order?

59OFFENDER:  Ah, yes, I do, Your Honour.

60HER HONOUR:  And do you consent to it being made?

61OFFENDER:  Yes, I do.

62HER HONOUR:  All right, I will sign that order. I note your consent on the record of the court, you may well be asked to sign a copy of this order, as well as your verbal consent today being recorded if restrictions are lifted sufficiently for you to have face-to-face meetings with officers from Corrections. Otherwise, it may be that it will be forwarded to Ms Foley at VLA and you may be asked to sign it there and return it. I just want you to be clear that the signing of the document is not a necessary part of the noting of your consent, you have given it today and we have all heard and noted it. You understand that?

63OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour. 

64HER HONOUR:  Mr Smith, I sincerely hope that this is the end of this for you, that you will accept the treatment that is going to be offered to you and the help that it can provide, and that will enable you to put behind you what must have been a very unhappy and distressing chapter in your life, as well as the life of your former partner, and that you will be able to move ahead with a happier, more fulfilling, substance abuse and offence free life in the future.

65OFFENDER:  Yeah, I plan to do so.

66HER HONOUR:  I declare pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, that but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a CCO of 300 hours with more onerous unpaid community work conditions that would not have been offset by treatment and rehabilitation conditions and would have imposed the same treatment and rehabilitation conditions as I have imposed here.  So, that is a formal statement, Mr Smith, of the orders that I would have made if you had been found guilty after contesting the charges. But the CCO that you face is that 18 month one, with only the 50 hours of unpaid community work offset by the treatment and rehabilitation programs.

67OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

68HER HONOUR:  Mr de Vietri, any further orders that are required to be made?

69MR DE VIETRI:  Nothing further from defence, Your Honour, thank you.

70HER HONOUR:  Thank you.  And Ms Hill, anything further from your point of view?

71MS HILL:  Nothing further from my point of view, Your Honour.

72HER HONOUR:  And do the orders correctly reflect what I said I intended to do?

73MS HILL:  Yes, they do.

74MR DE VIETRI:  Yes, Your Honour.

75HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.  Ms[redacted], I hope for you too, this is the end of the sad and sorry side and you too, can look ahead from now on. Thank you, we will adjourn. 

- - -