Director of Public Prosecutions v Tuting
[2018] VCC 688
•8 May 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR 16-00364
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SEAN KERRY TUTING |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE PULLEN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1 May 2018 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 May 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Tuting | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 688 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Ms S. MacDougall and Ms B. Bleazby | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr . Goodfellow and Mr S. Norton | Stary Norton Halphen |
To ensure there is no possibility of identification, this sentence has been anonymised by the adoption of pseudonyms in place of names of the victims and family or witnesses.
HER HONOUR:
1 Sean Tuting, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of grooming for sexual conduct a child under the age of 16 years. The maximum penalty applicable for this offence is ten years' imprisonment.
2 The communications were with Amy Charles[1] and your offending arises from events which occurred between 9 and 13 December 2015. It is not necessary for me to recount in great detail the facts of this matter as the matter has been opened in some detail by the learned prosecutor consistent with the prosecution opening (Exhibit A). I proceed to sentence you on the basis of the facts as summarised by the prosecutor and discussed during the course of your plea hearing. It is sufficient for present purposes to simply say the facts in this case are most serious and disturbing.
[1] Amy Charles is a pseudonym
3 I turn to a summary of your offending. You were 36 years of age at the time and are 38 at sentence. At the time of you offending you had no fixed place of abode, living under a bridge in the Melbourne CBD.
4 Amy was born in February 2002 and at the time of your offending was 13 years of age.
5 I turn to the background to your offending. MyLOL is a website created to provide a social network for teenagers and can also be downloaded as an application on a mobile phone. KIK is a mobile phone application which allows people to chat and share contents such as photos and videos.
6 On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 you made initial contact with Amy via MyLOL. You continued exchanging messages via KIK and then exchanged mobile phone numbers and sent each other text messages.
7 Amy's KIK profile page contained a photo of her face with a caption stating, "BHS Year 7, great time, not biggest fan of maths".
8 Almost immediately you started asking Amy if she could sneak out of her house to meet you. You ultimately arranged to meet her at the Heany Park Primary School oval on the evening of 14 December 2015 with the intention of having sexual intercourse. The meeting date was subsequently changed to Sunday, 13 December 2015.
9 Between 9 and 13 December 2015 you sent numerous sexually suggestive and explicit text messages to Amy. You also sent a photo of your naked erect penis. Some details of the text messages were set out within the prosecution opening paragraph 10. A reading of all the text messages however provides details of your entire communications and puts the messages into context.
10 On 13 December 2015 Amy's mother saw the messages on her daughter's phone and attended Knox Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team with her to report the matter.
11 At 7.52 pm a VARE interview was commenced with Amy. Police then made arrangements to arrest you at the Heany Park Primary School oval.
12 At approximately 10 pm you were arrested near the oval off Buckingham Drive, Rowville. At the time of the arrest you were carrying a large backpack containing condoms, sleeping bags, a toothbrush and toothpaste.
13 A record of interview was conducted with you on 13 December 2015. In that interview you made a number of admissions including, "I was coming here to have sexual relations with an underage girl". You stated that based on the victim's profile picture you believed she was 14. You could not recall why you chose to start messaging Amy in particular. You denied having previously been sexually involved with underage girls. In the interview you said you found Amy attractive and that you probably sent a few hundred messages of a sexual nature to her. You described your conduct as, "Stupid but like it's so easy to get caught up in it".
14 You pleaded guilty to this charge and you are entitled to have that fact taken into account in your favour and I do so. The community by your plea of guilty has been spared the time and cost of a trial and witnesses, in particular Amy have not been required to give evidence upon your trial.
15 Your plea of guilty has utilitarian benefit and is a relevant sentencing consideration.
16 Regarding the timing of your plea however requires further consideration. As I previously stated the victim made a VARE on 13 December 2015. You were arrested, interviewed and remanded in custody on that date. In the interview you made the admissions to which I have referred. On 14 December you made an application for bail which was refused.
17 On 17 December 2015 your application for bail was granted with a subsequent variation on 4 and 5 February 2016. On 4 March 2016 at a committal mention this matter proceeded by way of straight hand-up brief with you entering a plea of guilty to this charge. Your plea at that time was listed for 3 June 2016. I note you failed to attend that hearing.
18 You also breached a number of your bail conditions including failing to attend Aspire Health & Psychology. As a result, those representing you were notified of a pending application by the prosecution to revoke your bail.
19 Following your failure to attend on 3 June 2016 a warrant was issued and executed on 12 December 2017 and you were again placed in custody.
20 On 13 December 2017 at a court mention you indicated you then wished to plead not guilty to the charge. Shortly thereafter the matter proceeded on 19 December 2017 to an initial directions hearing at which time you were represented by new solicitors. The court was advised that further time was needed for them to take instructions and the matter was listed for trial.
21 On 29 January 2018 the prosecution was again advised you would plead guilty to the charge and on 2 February 2018 you were arraigned.
22 As at the date of your plea hearing, up to and including 1 May 2018, you had spent 144 days in custody by way of pre-sentence detention. Specifically you were arrested on 13 December 2015, granted bail on 17 December 2015, re-arrested 13 December 2017 and in custody up until your plea hearing and at sentence. Delay in this matter being finalised was of your making.
23 Mr Goodfellow conceded the delay in resolving this matter fell "entirely at your feet". Mr Goodfellow submitted, however, in part your failure to deal with this matter expeditiously was due to your fear you would be further remanded in custody.
24 Mr Goodfellow submitted your time to date in custody, this being the first time in custody, had had a salutary effect upon you.
25 The victim of your offending has suffered considerably and I shall return to pass some remarks upon that shortly.
26 The charge of grooming for sexual conduct with a child under the age of 16 years is a Class 2 offence and upon conviction you are subject to mandatory reporting for a period of 8 years pursuant to s.34(1)(a) Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. Your counsel agreed such classification and duration applied to you.
27 Turning to your offending. Your counsel, Mr Goodfellow, provided a written outline of submissions for your plea hearing.
28 It was accepted that the prosecution opening to which I have just referred accurately described your offending. Mr Goodfellow conceded your offending was serious and that general and specific deterrence would play an important role in sentencing for your offending. He is correct.
29 Mr Goodfellow referred to the communications between 9 and 13 December 2015 and submitted you did not seek to deceive the victim as to your age, nor did you request sexually explicit photographs form the victim, nor make any threats or intimidate Amy. As I discussed with him, he is of course correct in that regard, although was not however required to successfully engage Amy.
30 Turning to your personal history and circumstances. You are currently 38 years of age and spent your childhood in Launceston, Tasmania. Your father died when you were 2 and you were raised by your mother. She remarried when you were 7 and the family moved to Victoria. You maintained a very close relationship with her.
31 When you were 12 years of age your mother and stepfather divorced and your mother moved to Cairns. You spent the majority of your time in Cairns until you were 28 then moved to Belgium where you lived for five years.
32 You met and married your first partner when you were 18 with two children of that marriage currently 17 and 12 years of age. You separated from her after approximately seven years of marriage. You described having a strong relationship with both the children.
33 At 28 years of age you met and married your second partner whilst you were managing a backpackers hostel in Cairns. You and she went to Belgium which was her homeland. There are two children of that relationship, 9 and 7 years of age.
34 In 2013 you and your partner returned to Australia. You returned first to find employment and housing prior to the rest of the family arriving. You began work in Queensland, however were unable to continue that, then started working at Shopping Town Hotel in Doncaster. Your marriage at that time floundered.
35 The subsequent end of your marriage was a catalyst for the decline in your life. You lost your employment and housing and in that time you engaged in this offending.
36 You have not had contact with your children in Belgium since being on remand and your inability to communicate with them has had a significant impact upon you.
37 Regarding your education and employment, you completed primary education in Tasmania and Victoria then completed Year 12.
38 After you left school you were unemployed for a short time before working at Woolworths. You then commenced work in hospitality. Your work history had mainly been in hospitality since aged 19 until you ceased your employment in 2014.
39 When in Belgium for five years, the majority of that time you worked in hospitality but also in a call centre.
40 At the time of your arrest in this offending you were receiving Centrelink benefits. You have apparently expressed an interest in enrolling in a Centrelink business development program when released from custody.
41 You do not have any physical health issues nor any history of mental illness or psychiatric admissions. You had, however, a degree of depression and anxiety as a result of your current circumstances.
42 You had a very limited history of illicit drug use. When you were young you occasionally consumed alcohol on a social basis.
43 You do not have any criminal record or any matters that are pending. I am conscious of that and certainly I am aware of it and Mr Goodfellow relied heavily upon your lack of history.
44 Prior good character is relevant although of less significance for offending such as yours, albeit I stress not eliminated. I am, as I have said, aware of your lack of criminal history.
45 Turning to a number of sentencing factors urged in mitigation in your sentence, Mr Goodfellow referred to your admissions to your offending when approached by police. I also note those admissions.
46 He urged you also pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, however Mr Goodfellow, I note, correctly observed you prolonged the resolution of the matter by failing to answer your bail. Despite your instructions apparently to plead not guilty, Mr Goodfellow said it had been your intention to plead guilty and that you never sought to avoid responsibility for your offending.
47 Mr Goodfellow referred to the substantial utilitarian value in your plea of guilty and I agree. I also accept your plea of guilty as evidence of remorse for your offending.
48 Mr Goodfellow referred to a psychological report prepared by Dr Dion Gee dated 2 March 2016. You had accepted in your discussions with him complete responsibility for your wrongdoing and did not seek to mitigate your offending. In the opinion of Dr Gee, Mr Goodfellow urged you had insight into your offending and the consequences for the victim.
49 Turning to your prospects of rehabilitation, Mr Goodfellow urged they were excellent and that you did not have any criminal record, nothing pending or subsequent. Further you had a strong work history and maintained strong family support. In addition you had insight and a high degree of remorse for your conduct.
50 Mr Goodfellow also referred to courses you had undertaken in custody and tendered a number of certificates confirming same as indicative of your ability to be successfully rehabilitated, to which I shall shortly refer. Mr Goodfellow also relied on your lack of any drug or alcohol abuse as assisting your prospects of rehabilitation. That submission needs to be assessed against your offending which occurred absent being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, reflecting instead a rather clear understanding by you of your offending and, in particular, your intention to groom the complainant for sexual purposes.
51 You also had as I was told, stable accommodation and employment available to you in Morwell.
52 Mr Goodfellow referred to the importance of protection of the community and deterrence as relevant sentencing considerations, in particular addressing sexual offending against children. He is correct.
53 Mr Goodfellow relied upon Dr Gee's assessment that you did not meet the clinical diagnosis of paedophilic disorder and that Dr Gee assessed you as a ‘low risk of re-offending’. Further, that Dr Gee discounted the presence of psychopathy.
54 Turning to current sentencing practices, Mr Goodfellow acknowledged that was but one of the factors that must be considered in reaching a just sentence (see the recent decision of Stalio v The Queen[2] inCarter v The Queen[3]). There are a number of matters that I must consider when sentencing you.
[2] (2012 46 VR 426
[3] [2018] VSCA 88
55 Mr Goodfellow referred me to a number of cases, Waldon v The Queen[4], DPP v Waldon[5], DPP v Van Dalen[6] and DPP v Hussain[7].
[4] [2016] VSCA 260
[5] [2016] VCC 1069
[6] [2017] VCC 117
[7] [2016] VCC 628
56 As he correctly observed, it is difficult comparing cases factually as facts vary enormously case to case as do matters in mitigation and personal to the offender. A reading of those cases highlights the difficulties in any comparisons.
57 For example in Waldron, no meeting was arranged.
58 In Hussain the offender was youthful, facing possible deportation and in fact had been in immigration detention since 14 October 2015, such being referred to by the sentencing judge as, "deprivation of his liberty". Hussain also had an adjustment disorder.
59 In Van Dalen there were only two episodes of contact involving sexual matters and a gap of time in between. The offender ceased the conduct after the second occasion. Also as the offender was in Perth there was no concrete positive or practical arrangements made to meet due to the geographic distance between the two.
60 Ultimately I must determine the appropriate disposition in your case and in that regard I discussed with Mr Goodfellow the concerning aspects of your offending. I also note the opportunities you had to desist from your offending which could have commenced with the cessation of messages once aware of the complainant's age. Unfortunately you did not desist. That you attended the oval as arranged increases the objective seriousness of your offending relevant to this grooming charge.
61 I turn to the report of Dr Gee dated 2 March 2016. It was observed during this assessment that you appeared unclear about your mental health needs and how best to address your past aberrant behaviour, although you did present as amenable to attending specialist services. You presented with only a partial appreciation of your risk profile and potential for future aberrant behaviour, although had some appreciation of the inverse nexus between mental state and risk of future aberrant behaviour.
62 Further details were provided in the report regarding your background and history which I have read but will not repeat here.
63 A brief history of your drug and alcohol use was contained within the report (paragraph 18). Specifically you were not under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol at any time during the period of your offending before me.
64 Regarding your current self reporting of your offending you presented as open when discussing your aberrant behaviour, however, remained somewhat perplexed by how such behaviour came about, acknowledging that at the time you went to meet Amy, you knew she was under age.
65 You stated your offending behaviour was, "Wrong on all levels, morally, legally, … she's 14". You acknowledged you should not have sent the photograph. Your offending had turned your life ‘upside down’. Details of testing using the Static-99R and RSVP assessment tools were contained within the report. Using both those assessment tools you represented a low risk of re-offending sexually.
66 Further, Dr Gee concluded there was a moderate level of protection against a relapse by you into sexual violence. From information available to Dr Gee, it did not appear you would be drawn into such aberrant activity again should you demonstrate psychological stability and experience purpose and meaning in your life. In Dr Gee's opinion it appeared currently highly unlikely your past sexual behaviour would escalate into more predatory acts. It did not appear to Dr Gee you posed a risk of sexual violence towards males nor towards prepubescent girls or adult women.
67 Your assessed risk, however, he concluded would be dependent on and further moderated by the monitoring of your mental state. This would depend upon your motivation for intervention and what services you accepted or received, also including your desire to remain offence free especially during times of adversity.
68 Regarding your present desire to avoid sexually aberrant behaviour, you lack the requisite skills and competencies to meet your needs in a more adaptive pro social and meaningful way. In the opinion of Dr Gee your sexual behaviour appeared motivated by an implicit need for self regulation rather than explicit desire to commit sexually aberrant behaviour because of an ingrained deviancy.
69 In Dr Gee's opinion your aberrant sexual behaviour was,
"Best construed as an unsophisticated attempt at sexual expression and social connectedness in a man with reduced psychosocial competence, feelings of isolation/loneliness, diminished identify/self worth, reduced effective awareness, compromised interpersonal connectedness and dysfunctional self regulation".
70 In the opinion of Dr Gee you demonstrated only partial insight into your mental health needs. You struggled to articulate links between self regulation and aberrant behaviour. Further you had only a partial understanding of your risk profile and potential future risks. And all of this is relevant when assessing your rehabilitation prospects, of which I have some concerns.
71 You did however accept the need for intervention and professional support.
72 Dr Gee considered that to that end it was recommended you receive ongoing monitoring of your mental health. He questioned the appropriateness of any sex offender intervention program run by Corrections Victoria. In his opinion one to one assessment and treatment would be preferable. Mr Goodfellow was not relying upon the principles in R v Verdins & Ors[8] when sentencing you, and based on the material before me such was an appropriate concession.
[8] (2007) 16 VR 269
73 I turn to the courses recently completed by you. Specifically before me was a Certificate of a 6 Hour AOD & Depression Certificate, a Certificate for Prison Legal Education & Assistance Project Court Readiness Program, a 6 Hour AOD & Stress Management Program, a 6 Hour AOD & Loss Program, completion of the Responsible Service of Alcohol Program. Also a number of certificates obtained from Box Hill Institute, specifically, Read & Respond to Simple Workplace Information, Participate in Workplace Safety Arrangements, Provide Responsible Service of Alcohol, Recognise Highly Familiar Workplace Signs & Symbols, Provide First Aid, Participate in OHS Processes, Follow Work Procedures to maintain food safety, Participate in Work Safety Arrangements. You have used your time in custody productively and that is to your credit and will no doubt assist your rehabilitation prospects, particularly if you continue along that line.
74 There was a Victim Impact Statement before me from Amy's mother Kathryn Charles[9]. The statement is eloquent and it is difficult to do justice to do it in these brief sentencing remarks, but I have however read that statement. There has been a significant adverse impact upon the family and Amy as a result of your offending. Kathryn described your offending as having ruined their Christmas, that it was very tense as Amy was not talking to them because she was angry with her parents for going to the police. There were some ‘horrible arguments’. Kathryn had never thought her daughter would do something like this, it was out of character for her which made Kathryn wonder what she had been told by you.
[9] Kathryn Charles is a pseudonym
75 Before your offending Amy was a bubbly carefree girl, now she felt embarrassed what was happening between the two of you had been found out.
76 Your offending caused trouble between Amy and her siblings who are disgusted by her actions. They were angry Amy may have put them in danger by you potentially knowing who they were.
77 Amy was very closed off, she had no affection, no chitchat, nothing. She was vacant like she was not there. As it was the school holidays she did not even have contact with friends because she did not want to have to tell her friends what had happened. Amy did not have a birthday for that reason.
78 Your offending continued to affect Amy in many ways. She was unable to have a phone and had to explain to her friends why she was not permitted to have one. Normal things she would be doing as a teenage girl, she was not permitted to do. Amy did not feel confident any more.
79 This made Kathryn sad and angry that her daughter was missing out and also made Kathryn anxious that your offending would continue to affect Amy's social development.
80 Your offending had made Kathryn question her judgment, people and situations. She felt unsafe at home especially when at home alone with the children. She was more vigilant than prior to your offending. She was more protective of the children. She continued to check Amy's old email account to make sure nothing was happening.
81 Kathryn did not feel she could trust Amy anymore. It was hard to get that trust back. She felt Amy had also lost trust in her because they went to the police. Kathryn says she knew, however, it was the right thing to do to protect Amy and potentially other children.
82 Kathryn described her partner as "a mess", blaming himself and wanting to protect Amy. This created uneasiness between them as a couple regarding how they would deal with Amy.
83 Kathryn was embarrassed by what had happened and she felt she had failed as a mother because Amy did not come and talk to her about the messages. She felt sad, angry and disappointed in herself because she was not there for Amy when she needed her and felt guilty she did not pick up on what was happening.
84 Kathryn continued to have constant nightmares about Amy going to meet you and never returning. At times she wakes hysterical in tears.
85 She often thinks of the ‘what ifs’, what could have happened to Amy and how she would cope with the mothering of her other children. She did not want anyone to think differently of Amy, mostly Kathryn was angry at you. You were older than Kathryn and that you should have known better. She just wanted this over for her family to be able to move forward and enjoy what they still had.
86 Also relevant is the notion of social rehabilitation referred to in DPP v Toomey[10] in which Vincent J cited DPP v. DJK[11].
[10] [2006] VSCA 90
[11] [2003] VSCA 109
87 The effect upon a victim is a relevant sentencing consideration (see s5 Sentencing Act 1991). I am conscious however I must not allow the effects upon a victim to swamp the sentencing process.
88 Regarding your rehabilitation prospects, I have guarded optimism particularly in light of this offending occurring in the context of you not having previously offended in such a way. I am of course aware you have not previously or subsequently been dealt with for offending, sexual or otherwise. You do however need to address a number of matters identified by Dr Gee, to which I have previously referred. Your prospects of rehabilitation will depend upon your motivation to address your issues.
89 In sentencing you however, I must of course maximise your prospects of rehabilitation as they maybe.
90 Turning to disposition, Mr Goodfellow's initial sentencing submission was that I declare time served and then impose a Community Correction Order. His secondary submission without abandoning his primary submission, was that I could require you to serve a longer time in custody and then impose a Community Correction Order.
91 Ms MacDougall, on behalf of the prosecution, submitted both dispositions urged by Mr Goodfellow would be manifestly inadequate sentences for your offending. Ms MacDougall submitted the only appropriate disposition was a head sentence with a non-parole period.
92 Ms MacDougall provided written submissions following your plea hearing referrable to a combination disposition involving both a term of imprisonment and a Community Correction Order, and I trust everyone received that correspondence.
93 As I understood from her correspondence, Mr Goodfellow agreed with her analysis and I thank counsel very much for that information.
94 Regarding the submission that a Community Correction Order should form part of either disposition urged by Mr Goodfellow, Ms MacDougall submitted the chronology before the court reflected your flagrant disregard for court orders in the past. That whilst your offending (messages) occurred over a few days and not longer, it was nevertheless a flurry of communications commenced by you. Ms MacDougall conceded you had a clear purpose in meeting the complainant for sex.
95 Ms MacDougall acknowledged you were candid with police about your offending/intentions.
96 Ms MacDougall submitted you lacked empathy for Amy, in particular as you had a young daughter about the same age as the complainant. Also, Ms MacDougall referred to the gross disparity in your ages.
97 I have considered whether either disposition urged by Mr Goodfellow involving a term of imprisonment with a Community Correction Order would be appropriate. In that regard I am mindful of the decision of Boulton & Ors v R[12], and the subsequent pronouncements of the Court of Appeal relevant to those principles. A Community Correction Order has both a punitive and rehabilitative aspect to it and in Boulton the court was urged to "rethink the conventional wisdom about whether prison is really the only option".
[12](2014) 46 VR 308
98 Community corrections orders have been referred to and considered in a number of cases since then including DPP v Maxfield[13], Alam v The Queen[14], Marocchini v The Queen[15], and Hutchinson v The Queen[16], and relatively recently Gul v The Queen[17], of course being mindful as I am of the different offending in those cases from yours.
[13] [2015] VSCA 95
[14] [2015] VSCA 48
[15] [2015] VSCA 29
[16] [2015] VSCA 115
[17] [2016] VSCA 82
99 I did not however understand Boulton to remove the requirement that a sentencing judge must take into account all of s5 Sentencing Act 1991, nor did I understand Boulton to mean that sentencing principles as stated by the Court of Appeal and other courts relevant to this offending now amounted to nought. Nor did I understand Boulton's decision to remove the instinctive synthesis when sentencing.
100 I also did not understand Boulton to remove the need for me to be mindful of the maximum penalties applicable to the charge you face. Further I note in the Court of Appeal, Priest JJA observes in Hutchinson that,
"… it should not be thought that Boulton offers a 'get out of jail free' card in situations where a sentence of imprisonment is necessary in a given case to satisfy the various purposes for which a sentence maybe imposed". (para 17).
101 I have considered these submissions by Mr Goodfellow, having also had the benefit of his written submission, the report of Dr Gee and certificates relied upon.
102 In my opinion to impose a Community Correction Order in either circumstance urged by Mr Goodfellow would not adequately or appropriately reflect all sentencing considerations.
103 As well as matters personal to you including your prospects of rehabilitation, I must also take into account matters such as deterrence, especially general deterrence which is of considerable importance in a case such as this.
104 There is also the need for specific deterrence. Whilst yet again I note you do not have any prior court appearances or anything subsequent or pending, your offending occurred on multiple occasions and over a number of days.
105 I must also consider the question of protection of members of the community from you and bear in mind the likelihood of your re-offending. This does concern me although there is some comfort in the report of Dr Gee. My concerns will only be allayed by you successfully undertaking appropriate counselling to address your offending behaviour.
106 I am called upon by the Sentencing Act to manifest the community's denunciation of your conduct and generally to impose a just punishment.
107 In my opinion the only appropriate disposition involves a head sentence with a non-parole period and I sentence you as follows.
108 On Charge 1 you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and I direct you serve a period of 15 months before you are eligible for parole. I will repeat that, 3 years' imprisonment and I direct you serve a period of 15 months before eligible for parole.
109 Pursuant to s6AAA Sentencing Act 1991, had you pleaded not guilty to this charge and been found guilty of it, in other words if it was before a jury, you pleaded not guilty and had been found guilty, I would have sentenced you to a head sentence of 5 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years.
110 Pursuant to s18(4) Sentencing Act 1991, I declare you have spent 152 days in custody, up to and including yesterday 7 May 2018, by way of pre-sentence detention. And I direct that be entered into the records of the court in just a moment when I confirm it or otherwise.
111 The prosecution made application for a forensic sample, that was not opposed by counsel on your behalf and I make the order in the terms sought. It will be for a saliva sample and I do so on the basis of the seriousness of your offending. I must advise you the authorities may use reasonable force in order to obtain that sample.
112 The prosecution submitted as I have previously said by your plea of guilty to this charge being a Class 2 offence, Schedule 2, Item 4A Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, you are subject to mandatory reporting as I have said for a period of 8 years. Mr Goodfellow conceded such duration and classification applied to you and I have made that order.
113 Ms Jackson in a moment is going to come down to the back of the court and ask you to sign simply acknowledging the paperwork. You are not being asked if you want to be on the order, I have made that order, it is just signing to get the paperwork but if you do not want to sign it that is all right, she has to ask you. Now PSD?
114 MS BLEAZBY: Your Honour, I calculated it as 152 days and that was because the 144 days that were set out in the opening did not include the plea date so it was just the one extra day.
115 HER HONOUR: All right, I am happy to increase it, I will not decrease it though. So are you happy with 152?
116 MR NORTON: Yes Your Honour.
117 HER HONOUR: I will rephrase that. Pursuant to s18(4) I declare you have done 152 days up to and including yesterday by way of pre-sentence detention. Ms Jackson is going to wander down the back in a minute with that paperwork to do with the Sex Offenders Registration Act. As I said she has to ask you to sign it.
118 MR NORTON: If it's convenient Your Honour, I'll accompany Ms Jackson.
119 HER HONOUR: Yes. Naturally, I should have said.
120 MR NORTON: Thank you Your Honour.
121 HER HONOUR: Thank you very much for that, thanks Mr Tuting, you will have to leave now. Thank you both
- - -
13
0