Director of Public Prosecutions v Talbot

[2022] VCC 1427

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT Melbourne

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-20-01202

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JUSTIN TALBOT

---

JUDGE:	O'CONNELL
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 August 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 August 2022; Revised 8 September 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v TALBOT
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:              Home invasion; Intentionally causing serious injury; Offender in company with two others carried out home invasion looking for a person who stole a motorbike; Victim, with no connection to theft, threatened with loaded sawn-off shotgun; Firearm deliberately discharged into victim’s knee; Victim permanently disabled; Plea of guilty; relevant previous convictions; Totality; Delay; General and specific deterrence.

Legislation Cited:      Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

Cases Cited:R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88; Robbins v The Queen [2012] VSCA 34; Evans v DPP [2019] VSCA 239; Weber v The Queen [2017] VSCA 93; Charles v The Queen [2011] VSCA 399; R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269; Arthars v The Queen [2013] VSCA 258; Lukudu v The Queen [2019] VSCA 248; DPP v L’Eveille [2018] VSCA 60; Hope v The Queen & Pua v The Queen [2018] VSCA 230; Webster v The Queen [2016] VSCA 329; Booker v The Queen [2022] VSCA 150; The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48.

Sentence:                  Total effective sentence 8 years, non-parole period 5 years and 6 months

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr D Cordy	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Tovey	Balmer & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1Justin Michael Talbot, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of home invasion in that at Bendigo on 29 September 2019 you entered a home in York Street as a trespasser with intent to commit an assault, and at the time you had with you a single-barrel sawn-off shotgun. When you entered those premises you were also in company with another person. Scott Veenings and Sydney Heaney were present inside that house at the time of entry.

2You have also pleaded to a second charge that at Bendigo on the same date you intentionally caused serious injury to Scott Veenings.

3The maximum penalty for those offences is 25 years’ imprisonment and 20 years’ imprisonment respectively.

Circumstances of offending

4Sometime between the hours of 11pm on Friday, 27 September 2019 and 4.30am on Saturday, 28 September 2019, a black 2005 Suzuki motorcycle belonging to Ashley Slattery was stolen from a driveway in Bridge Street, Bendigo.

5Mr Slattery was originally a co-accused in respect of these matters, however he is now deceased.

6The prosecution case was that the Suzuki motorcycle was stolen by Luke Courtney-Clack and Brayden Sainsbury. When Mr Sainsbury became aware that the motorbike was owned by Mr Slattery, he decided to help return the motorcycle to him.

7Mr Slattery published a Facebook post appealing for information regarding the theft of his motorcycle. Mr Sainsbury responded, indicating that he wished to assist. Later, Mr Slattery picked up Mr Sainsbury who directed him to the location of the stolen motorbike, which had been damaged. In this way, Mr Slattery became aware that the other person involved in the theft of his motorbike was Luke Courtney-Clack.

8Mr Slattery then set about enlisting you to deal with Mr Courtney-Clack for his role in the theft and damage of the motorcycle.

9Earlier that day, which was AFL Grand Final day, the victim of these offences, Scott Veenings, travelled from Melbourne to Bendigo with his friend Sydney Heaney. They went to a house occupied by Nicole Singleton and Daniel Stevenson at the address on York Street in Bendigo.

10The two occupants and the two guests drank alcohol throughout the afternoon and into the evening until they reached a point where Ms Singleton and Mr Stevenson went to bed whilst Mr Veenings and Mr Heaney remained in the lounge room.

11Shortly afterwards, as he sat on the couch, Mr Veenings saw a person look under the curtain and through the window into the lounge room. At that same moment, you and another person came in through the back door in what Mr Veenings described as an aggressive manner.

12As you entered you were carrying a single-barrel sawn-off shotgun. When you came into the lounge room the second male went and opened the front door, allowing a third person to come inside. It was the prosecution case that one of the co-offenders was Mr Slattery and that they were looking for Mr Courtney-Clack, who was expected to be there.

13

You said a number of times, “Where is Luke?”

Mr Veenings told you that he did not know where Luke was. You then put the shotgun to Mr Veenings’s head, with the tip of the barrel touching his forehead. You continued to ask where Luke was and struck him on the head with the butt of the gun.

14Whilst this occurred, Mr Veenings could hear other people apparently searching in other parts of the house. You continued to ask where Luke was and said that Luke had stolen your motorbike. After about 5–10 minutes, you walked up to Mr Veenings, who was still seated on the couch, put the shotgun to his right knee and pulled the trigger. Mr Veenings heard a loud bang and saw a flash. You and the other two males immediately ran out the front door.

15Mr Veenings recalls sitting on a couch just outside the front door, starting to feel pain in his leg, and seeing a lot of blood. Eventually an ambulance was called, and a short time later paramedics commenced treating the victim. He was taken to Bendigo Hospital where an x-ray on the right knee confirmed that he had sustained a gunshot wound. Bendigo Hospital staff notified police. Mr Veenings was then taken by road ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, where he underwent surgery to remove a number of shotgun pellets and a shotgun cartridge wadding from his right knee.

16On 29 September 2019, Mr Veenings was shown a photo folder which contained 12 images, including one image of you. He identified you with the words, “I’m pretty sure it’s this bloke whom had the gun”.

17Thereafter, investigators lawfully intercepted phone services used by you. In a conversation with an associate on 25 January 2020 you were recorded telling that person, “I told you when I shot someone”. The prosecution suggest that was a reference to the shooting of Mr Veenings.

18Similarly, in two telephone conversations on 31 March 2020 you were recorded saying, “I can hunt duck, I can fucken shoot people in the leg too”, and later, “It’s like cunt, you got me to go somewhere for ya, back you up, someone got shot”. The prosecution contended that these were also references to the shooting of Mr Veenings.

19On 15 April 2020 a search warrant was executed at a home on Napier Street, White Hills. You were arrested and when interviewed by police elected to exercise your right to make no comment. You were then remanded in custody.

Victim impact

20At the time he was shot, Mr Veenings was 45 years of age and was visiting friends in Bendigo. He normally lived in Melbourne.

21He had nothing to do with the theft of the motorcycle, had no knowledge of it, and was very much an innocent victim of this offending.

22He provided a victim impact statement which became Exhibit B on the Plea. He did not however want that statement read aloud in court.

23In essence, the impact of what you did to Mr Veenings was life-changing.

24As a result of his injuries, he is no longer able to walk and needs to use a wheelchair to get around. He is now not able to carry out basic living tasks such as housework, shopping and dressing in the way that he had previously. He is no longer able to engage in outdoor activities such as camping, hiking or playing sport.

25As he says, what happened has made every day a challenge which he feels will never get better. He will bear his disability for the rest of his life.

Personal circumstances

26You were born in June 1990 and are now 32 years of age. You were 29 when you committed this offence.

27You grew up in the Bendigo area. Your parents remain together but their relationship was blighted by ongoing and at times extreme family violence. Your father suffered significant mental health issues and periodically required inpatient psychiatric care. Your mother was often forced to stay in women’s refuges. Police would attend your home regularly to deal with the family violence and on one occasion your father was involved in a siege with police.

28Although you generally were not physically assaulted, your exposure to this violence has, for reasons I will explain, left its mark.

29You were the second of three children. You are said to continue to maintain a good relationship with both of your sisters.

30You were sexually abused when you were aged 8 and 9 by a family friend who was then aged about 17. You did not disclose the abuse at the time because you say you felt embarrassed and ashamed. Some years ago, you told your former partner about what had happened and, more recently, your mother. You continue to suffer intrusive and distressing memories and anxiety from the abuse.

31In the wake of that abuse you were said to be an angry and poorly-behaved child, which significantly impacted your schooling. You were diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and, for a time, medicated. The medication was ceased due to unwanted side effects. The problems in respect of your schooling continued into secondary school and you ended up leaving school towards the end of Year 7.

32You began working with an uncle as a plasterer. You then commenced and ultimately completed an apprenticeship in that trade. Unfortunately, the business where you completed your apprenticeship ceased trading and as a consequence you never received your formal papers, although you have the necessary skills. You also completed a Certificate ll in engineering.

33When you were 25 years of age in 2015, you were involved in a motorbike accident which resulted in serious injuries including a broken neck, a broken leg and a broken arm. You underwent surgery on a number of occasions and still suffer from ongoing pain and headaches. You were unable to work for 12 months.

34I was told that you commenced heavy substance abuse in the months after that accident.

35You have a relevant criminal history. In 2010 you were dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court for recklessly causing injury and unlawful assault. You were sentenced to two months’ imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order.

36In April 2013 you were sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court for recklessly causing serious injury, intentionally causing injury, and behaving in a riotous manner. You were sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 months. I was told that matter related to a fight in a hotel. The orders made on that occasion make reference to you suffering from a psychiatric illness, the symptoms of which included anxiety, depression and paranoia.

37In November 2016 you were before this court in respect of aggravated burglary and recklessly cause injury. You were sentenced to an aggregate of 15 months’ imprisonment and, in addition, a community correction order of 18 months’ duration.

38The consistent theme emerging from those previous convictions is the propensity for violence. Mr Tovey, who appeared on your behalf, submitted that your history of resort to violence is generally explained by the trauma of your childhood experiences. He emphasised that on each occasion where you had been subject to supervision, you appear to have complied with the orders imposed.

39The sentencing remarks in respect of the 2016 matter reveal that incident to be of quite a different character to this case. There, you had a long-running dispute with a man you had known in high school. He posted abusive messages on Facebook about you, and you responded by confronting him at his home.

40You had been in a long-standing intimate relationship when you were between the ages of 15–25. It ended after your first term of imprisonment and there is an eight-year-old daughter of that relationship, to whom you have been close. Over your time in prison in respect of this matter you’ve not been able to see your daughter physically because of the COVID-19 restrictions. It was put, and I accept, that this was particularly hard for you.

41A neuropsychological report of 9 December 2018 from Dr Ian Stuart, prepared for the Transport Accident Commission, concludes that you suffered a severe impairment in your verbal memory as a result of the motorbike accident in 2015. Dr Stuart formed the view that you suffered from severe mixed anxiety and depression, which had been aggravated by your inability to return to work.

42He concluded his report as follows:

“Overall, my impression is that Mr Talbot is in a desperate situation; his recovery from his orthopaedic injuries has not been sufficient to allow him to return to work, and his period in prison has affected his rehabilitation, leaving him with significant physical limitations. Furthermore he is having to cope with the effects of a severe verbal memory disorder which further undermines his confidence… Although he has a new partner who is now pregnant, I have the impression that he needs further support in this relationship. I believe that he is at risk for suicide.”        

43Clearly enough, by the end of 2018 your mental health had deteriorated significantly. You had commenced a new relationship in 2017 and a son was born from that relationship in February 2019. Your young son had some severe health problems requiring lengthy stays in hospital. In the context of your continuing substance abuse, the relationship broke down and you were charged with unlawful assault of her and breaching an intervention order. Those matters were ultimately dealt with in July 2020 in the Magistrates’ Court and you were sentenced to one year and one month’s imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months. You were not paroled and you were not released after the expiration of that sentence because you have continued to be in custody in respect of this matter.

Psychological assessment and submissions

44For the purposes of these proceedings you were assessed by a psychologist Ms Miriam Latif who provided reports of 27 February 2022 and 29 July 2022. Ms Latif also gave oral evidence on your plea.

45Ms Latif diagnosed you with substance abuse disorders, schizoaffective disorder – depressive type, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and ADHD:

“…it is likely that symptoms of untreated ADHD, such as racing thoughts and psychomotor agitation have made it more difficult for Mr. Talbot to gain control over his anger/frustration when experiencing heightened levels of depression and trauma related anxiety.

“These stressors first presented approximately twelve months in the lead up to the offending and over that time Mr. Talbot’s mental health continued to decline. It is proposed that Mr. Talbot’s offences occurred in the context of unresolved trauma (PTSD) following disclosure of childhood sexual abuse for the first time, resultant depression and in response, increased substance use.

“While Mr. Talbot is diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, evidence did not suggest that Mr. Talbot was actively suffering psychosis at the time of the offending. However, Schizoaffective Disorder is a serious and permanent condition that Mr. Talbot has suffered since adolescence and infers a fragile mental state that is due consideration in this case.

“It is also noted that both ADHD and PTSD include symptomology related to impulsive behaviour, anger, and poor behavioural control which may also have contributed to Mr. Talbot’s poor conduct. This conduct was likely worsened by drug and alcohol intoxication that would likely have served to further disinhibit Mr. Talbot’s impulsivity and behaviour.”[1]

[1] Report of Miriam Latif, 27 February 2022, paragraphs [93]–[95].

46You told your psychologist that on Grand Final day 2019 you had been using MDMA and methylamphetamine and had been drinking heavily since about 11am. In that context, you said you agreed to help Mr Slattery find the person who stole his motorbike and accompanied him to this address. You said that the gun was not yours, that you had loaned it from someone else and that you were unaware that it was loaded. You admitted hitting the victim with the gun but denied pointing it at his head. You said that “things escalated very quickly” and the gun ended up “going off”, resulting in the victim being shot in the knee.

47Mr Tovey submitted that your actions were not pre-planned and that you had acted spontaneously when you shot the victim.

48The prosecutor, Mr Cordy, submitted that your account to the psychologist unduly minimised what you did. I accept that that is so. Contrary to your version, the summary of prosecution opening for plea provides the factual basis for sentence and makes it clear that you put the shotgun to the victim’s head in such a way that the tip of the barrel touched his forehead.

49In my view, the notion that you acted spontaneously is not an apt description of your actions. Mr Courtney-Clack did not live at this address. You went there with Mr Slattery because you thought he might be there. You burst into these premises in an extremely aggressive manner. You spent a number of minutes brandishing the weapon and threatening the victim whilst others searched the premises. You then calmly put the gun against his knee and discharged it. That was a callous and brutal act that has had catastrophic consequences for a man who posed no threat to you whatsoever. The reality was that you had plenty of time to pause, consider and desist before you shot Mr Veenings.

50Mr Tovey argued that three of the principles identified in Verdins[2] were engaged in your case.

[2]R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269.

51The first related to your moral culpability. It was said that your ability to exercise appropriate judgment, make calm and rational choices and think clearly was impaired by your PTSD and your ADHD. In her oral evidence Ms Latif focused particularly on the impulsivity that characterised those conditions as likely contributing to the commission of the offence.

52Mr Cordy submitted that the necessary causal or realistic connection between those conditions and the offending was not made out. You were heavily substance affected when you committed these offences and it was those substances that were likely operating on your mind and impairing judgment and rational thought.

53In resolving that dispute, I must ask whether your conditions and their impairment of mental functioning contributed to the offending in such a way as to render your actions less blameworthy.[3] Ultimately, I am not persuaded that your conditions contributed in that way. Your psychological disabilities are important features of your personal circumstances and I will take them into account generally, but I do not see them as providing the basis for a finding that you are less morally culpable.

[3] Arthars v The Queen [2013] VSCA 258 at [13] per Redlich, Coghlan JJA and T Forrest AJA.

54Ms Latif’s evidence raises the possibility that they may have had some influence on your behaviour but that possibility in my view is speculative. I accept the prosecutor’s submissions that the reality was that at the time you were grossly affected by alcohol, MDMA and Methylamphetamine and that if anything was compromising your ability to exercise judgment, think clearly or make calm, rational choices, it was very likely those substances.

55Accordingly, I am not satisfied that your psychological conditions reduce your moral culpability for this offending.

56The second principle engaged related to whether the nature of your condition would render your time in custody more burdensome. Ms Latif suggested that your mild paranoid symptoms, active PTSD and untreated ADHD make it likely that you “will have more difficulty with a prolonged custodial sentence than someone not suffering from [your] psychological presentation”.[4] I accept that this principle is properly engaged and it will be applied so as to mitigate your sentence.

[4] Report of Miriam Latif, 27 February 2022, paragraph [96].

57The third principle that Mr Tovey suggested may be engaged related to the serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on your mental health. In her evidence, Ms Latif spoke of some such risk to you but was not able to characterise it as a serious risk. Accordingly, in my view that principle is not engaged in your case.

General submissions

58Mr Tovey relied on the following further matters in mitigation:

(a)   First, your plea of guilty, whilst not entered at the earliest practicable opportunity, was nonetheless extremely valuable. It is a plea that has ultimately facilitated the course of justice and, importantly, its utilitarian benefit is enhanced by the fact that it is made at a time when the court is striving to manage a large number of criminal trials which have been delayed by the pandemic.

(b)   Second, you have borne the entirety of your time on remand subject to the very restrictive environment imposed in prison in order to deal with the pandemic. That additional burden of imprisonment now needs to be taken into account in your favour.

(c)   Third, it is submitted that your plea of guilty is consistent with a degree of remorse and insight as to the harm your offending has caused.

(d)   Fourth, there has been a considerable delay in the finalisation of your matter. The uncertainty that delay has generated has been punitive. You have also used the time in custody constructively insofar as you have advocated for the reinstatement of rehabilitative programs within the prison and, in particular, have sought the introduction of a parenting course to assist prisoners in maintaining their connection with their children whilst incarcerated and building better relationships with them upon release.

(e)   Fifth, Mr Tovey submitted that the principle of totality has substantial relevance to the formulation of your sentence because of the overlap in the conduct constituting each offence.

(f)    Sixth, Mr Tovey submitted that your prospects for rehabilitation very much hinge on you receiving appropriate treatment in respect of both your mental health and substance abuse. On that basis, he submitted that the term imprisonment imposed in your case should be structured in such a way as to enable you to spend a significant portion of the sentence subject to supervised parole.

59In response, Mr Cordy submitted that it was inevitable that a lengthy term of imprisonment must be imposed in this case. Any such term would provide for a long period on parole in the ordinary course. The fact was, it was submitted, that this was a “high-end” example of the offence of intentionally causing serious injury. Your moral culpability for that offence should be assessed as very high.

60As to the issue of remorse, Mr Cordy submitted that some of the comments you made in the telephone intercepts sound as if you were bragging about the commission of this offence and having shot a man in the leg. Those comments, he suggested, were not consistent with genuine remorse at all.

Consideration

61In analysing these submissions, I should make clear that your sentence will be substantially reduced as a result of your plea of guilty for the reasons Mr Tovey articulated and I have recited above. Similarly, the restrictive conditions to which you have been subject in prison and the lengthy delay in the finalisation of this matter are matters which should and will mitigate your sentence.

62However, I find the issue of remorse more problematic. The comments you made on the telephone intercepts are not necessarily inconsistent with the presence of remorse, but on the available material it is difficult to gauge whether you are now truly remorseful. Ms Latif deals with the issue in this way:

“… Mr Talbot expressed regret and remorse for his actions. He said “I wish I had never taken the phone call, I have a lot of regret, I feel remorseful for what I have done and I’m sorry”. It is noted however, that Mr Talbot did not express victim empathy or speak about his remorse regarding the impact his actions have had on the victim in this case.”[5]

[5] Ibid [100].

63I find that I am unable to come to a concluded view about how remorseful you feel about what you have done and what that might mean for your future prospects for rehabilitation. Ultimately, I have determined to treat that factor as neutral.

64Your prospects for rehabilitation more generally, I agree, hinge on effective treatment of your mental health and substance abuse. You have, it appears, complied with supervision in the past and might well benefit from supervision which directs such treatment on parole. To the extent that I can facilitate the opportunity for you to undertake supervised release I will do so, but that objective is constrained by other more punitive sentencing purposes which I will address below.

65It also appears that the principle of totality has application in your case in two important respects. First, because of the substantial overlap in the conduct which constitutes the offences. Second, you have been in custody for this matter since 15 April 2020 – over 2 years and 4 months. However, just over a year of that time is not able to be declared under s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 because of the sentence imposed in the Magistrates’ Court in July 2020. Any opportunity to serve part of that sentence concurrently has been lost.

66As a matter of fairness, the principle of totality must operate in that circumstance to ensure that the total period of imprisonment imposed is appropriate. The practical effect of the application of the principle will be to reduce the sentence otherwise imposed in a manner not dissimilar to that used when exercising the Renzella[6] discretion.

[6] R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88.

67All of that said, this remains a very serious example of the offence of intentionally causing serious injury, for which your moral culpability is high.

Comparative cases

68A consideration of sentences imposed for the offence of intentionally causing serious injury demonstrates that there is a wide range of circumstances in which this offence may be committed. That is borne out by the sentencing statistics provided by the Sentencing Advisory Council in their publication Sentencing Snapshot – Causing Serious Injury Intentionally, 2016–17 to 2020–21, published in December 2021. Of the 104 people who received non-aggregate terms of imprisonment for that offence, sentences ranged from 1 year to 13 years 9 months. The most common range of imprisonment terms was 5 to less than 6 years.[7]

[7] At p 4.

69The factors which tend to assist in determining the nature and gravity of offending of this type include whether a weapon was used, the context in which the offence occurred, and the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim.

70I have examined a number of cases where sentences have been imposed for the offence of intentionally causing serious injury, to provide a something of a “yardstick” to help achieve a “broad understanding of the range of sentences that would ensure consistency and a uniform application of principle”.[8] Those cases were Robbins v The Queen [2012] VSCA 34, Evans v DPP [2019] VSCA 239, Weber v The Queen [2017] VSCA 93, Charles v The Queen [2011] VSCA 399, Arthars v The Queen [2013] VSCA 258, Lukudu v The Queen [2019] VSCA 248, DPP v L’Eveille [2018] VSCA 60, Hope v The Queen & Pua v The Queen [2018] VSCA 230, Webster v The Queen [2016] VSCA 329; Booker v The Queen [2022] VSCA 150 and The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48.

[8] The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48 at [22] per Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ.

71Overall, those decisions are of limited utility, save that two cases had some relevant similarities and referred to principles which are apposite to your case.

72In Booker the manner in which the injury was inflicted involved shooting the victim in the leg with a sawn-off shotgun causing serious injury where the victim “may have permanent difficulties”. The sentence imposed for the causing serious injury intentionally was ten years which was not regarded as manifestly excessive.

73In Nicholls, the offender had shot two victims in the leg in separate incidents seven months apart. After being found guilty at trial, he was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment on each charge with 3 years’ cumulation on the second offence, rendering a total effective sentence of 11 years. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The Court noted that the fact that firearms were used at close range necessarily placed that type of offending in the higher range of seriousness. Specific deterrence was indicated given the readiness with which the offender resorted to firearms and the presence of relevant prior convictions. General deterrence was also particularly important:

“Whilst it must not exceed that which is proportionate to the offending, the community should be left in no doubt that the use of firearms to resolve disputes is wholly unacceptable and will be severely punished.”[9]

[9] At paragraph [140].

74Likewise, in your case general deterrence looms large. Using a firearm in the way that you did is “wholly unacceptable and will be severely punished”.

75Specific deterrence has a significant role to play as well, not only because of your preparedness to use a firearm but also because you have relevant prior convictions for violence.

76The severity of the injuries sustained by Mr Veenings and the life-changing consequences for him require that the sentence imposed also serve to denounce and punish you.

Sentence

77Taking all relevant matters into account you will be sentenced as follows.

78On Charge 1, home invasion, you will be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.

79On Charge 2, intentionally causing serious injury, you will be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months.

80I will order that 6 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 2, rendering a total effective sentence of 8 years. I will fix a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months.

81I will make a declaration under s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 that you have already served 622 days by way of presentence detention and I will cause that declaration to be noted in the records of the court.[10]

[10]This period was previously declared as 468 days and was amended in accordance with s 18(7) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) on 8 September 2022.

82I will further declare pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 that but for your plea of guilty you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of 9 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 7 years.