Director of Public Prosecutions v Valentino (a pseudonym)
[2024] ACTSC 140
•7 May 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Valentino (a pseudonym) |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 140 |
Hearing Date: | 7 May 2024 |
Decision Date: | 7 May 2024 |
Before: | Berman AJ |
Decision: | See [82] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years – where offender repeatedly breached position of trust – where many separate sexual acts occurred over a sustained period – acquiescence obtained by blackmail does not constitute consent – where offender is a victim of child sexual assault – consideration of Bugmy factors – children in need of somewhere to live need to be protected against predatory behaviours – lengthy prison sentence required |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 55 |
Cases Cited: | Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Valentino (a pseudonym) (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel B Morrisroe (DPP) J Cooper (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 210 of 2023 |
BERMAN AJ:
Introduction
1․The offender is before me today to be sentenced after having pleaded guilty to one offence of having sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 contrary to
s 55(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years’ imprisonment.2․All offences of having sexual intercourse with a child are serious, but what this offender did is a very serious example of that offence. He took advantage of a vulnerable 15-year-old girl who was staying with him because she had nowhere else to go. He effectively blackmailed her into having sexual intercourse with him before repeatedly, over many hours, performing other sexual acts upon her. He has done this sort of thing before too, and gone to prison for it. In such circumstances, a lengthy prison sentence is required.
3․In what follows, I will refer to the person who was the victim of this offending as “Charlotte Wilson”. I use that pseudonym in order to protect her privacy. Ms Wilson was in a relationship with the offender's son. As the offender's son was a child, I will give him a pseudonym, too. I will call him “Tom” and refer to him by his assumed first name only to reflect that he and the offender have the same family name. Finally, the offender has been given a pseudonym in order to further protect Ms Wilson’s privacy, and because his son is a child.
Facts
4․The offender was born in 1969.
5․Tom was in juvenile detention from December 2022 to January 2023. Whilst Tom was in custody, Ms Wilson contacted the offender through Facebook to allow easier communication with Tom whilst he was incarcerated. The first time Ms Wilson met the offender was around the end of December.
6․On 31 December 2022, during a phone call with Tom, which was recorded because Tom was in custody, the offender told his son that he “met your little woman” and that she was “nice”. Later that day, Ms Wilson was at a male friend's house and the friend made Ms Wilson feel uncomfortable. At the time, Ms Wilson was having difficulties with her parents and had nowhere else to stay. Ms Wilson contacted the offender via Facebook Messenger and the offender told Ms Wilson she could come to his house.
7․Ms Wilson went to the offender's home, where they stayed up all night consuming marijuana whilst talking about Tom and other subjects and listening to music. Ms Wilson began to feel like she was “too stoned” and asked if she could go to bed. The offender invited Ms Wilson to stay the night in Tom's bedroom, where she stayed alone.
8․The following day, Ms Wilson got up and chatted with the offender about Tom and how much they both missed him before she left the offender's residence. Tom had told Ms Wilson that if she needed anything, she could go to his father so that nothing bad would happen to her.
9․Around 3 January 2023, Ms Wilson again contacted the offender after she had a falling out with a friend she was staying with. The offender invited her to stay with him and she did so. While staying with the offender, she stayed in Tom's room.
10․Ms Wilson remained at the offender's address until the morning of 6 January 2023. Whilst Ms Wilson was living with the offender, they would use methamphetamine together.
11․On 5 January 2023, at around 7pm, Ms Wilson and the offender went out before returning to the offender's home. When they returned home, Ms Wilson went to bed in Tom's bedroom and fell asleep.
12․Ms Wilson estimated that she was asleep for around 25 to 45 minutes, when the offender stepped through the doorway to the room and turned the bedroom light on. The offender said words to the effect of “I have been hesitating about asking you a question for days”. He then turned and walked away.
13․Ms Wilson asked the offender if everything was okay. The offender turned around and said words to the effect of “what would you do for my son?”
14․The offender told Ms Wilson that he had spoken to a legal officer who had told him that he, that is, the offender, has control of whether Tom gets released or not. Ms Wilson asked the offender if he was going to let Tom out. The offender responded by saying, “I don't know. I really want him to do better and stay out of trouble when he gets out, but I don't think he will”.
15․The offender then repeated his first question to Ms Wilson, saying “what would you do for my son?” Ms Wilson responded, “well, basically anything at this point”. She was not to know what the offender had in mind.
16․The offender pulled down his pants, exposing his genitals, and walked towards Ms Wilson. The offender told Ms Wilson he was a lonely old man and asked Ms Wilson to give him “head”. The offender said to Ms Wilson, “if you give me head, I will let Tom out and you guys will be fine”.
17․Ms Wilson responded by saying “are you serious?” and the offender nodded and said, “well, yes. It's up to you. This is your choice. Or he could just stay in”. Ms Wilson looked away in disgust. The offender used his right hand to reposition Ms Wilson's face towards him. Ms Wilson tried to look away and the offender tried to push her head up so that she would look at him.
18․Ms Wilson told the offender that she did not want to give him oral sex. The offender persisted. Ms Wilson asked the offender, “would it be a one-time thing?” The offender shook Ms Wilson's hand with his right hand and said, “deal” and “no one will ever know. He will never know, don't ever tell a single soul”.
19․At the time, Ms Wilson was fearful of the offender and felt there was no other option but to do what he wanted.
20․The offender pushed Ms Wilson's head towards his penis, but Ms Wilson did not want to touch his penis with her hands. The offender put his penis into Ms Wilson's mouth and pushed her head down.
21․The offender pushed him penis all the way into Ms Wilson's mouth, causing her to choke. The offender then pulled his penis back and grabbed Ms Wilson's hand and put it on his penis. He moved her hand back and forth along his penis whilst also moving Ms Wilson's head back and forth, with his penis in her mouth.
22․Ms Wilson estimates that she was forced to engage in oral intercourse with the offender for 10 minutes. Ms Wilson later told police that she felt that her jaw was going to snap, and she tried to pull away, however the offender continued to insert his penis into her mouth, grabbing the back of her hair and pushing her head into his penis.
23․Ms Wilson was close to vomiting. Her jaw was aching, and it locked itself in a position. The offender moved his penis back and kept it in one position before Ms Wilson's jaw unlocked and the oral intercourse continued.
24․The oral intercourse ended when the offender pulled Ms Wilson's hair and head back, causing his penis to slip out of Ms Wilson's mouth.
25․The offender unclipped Ms Wilson's bra. Ms Wilson said, “can we stop”, to which the offender replied, “well, I kind of wanted to fuck you”. She covered her breasts.
26․The offender told her to come into his room with him. Ms Wilson remained where she was at first, and the offender turned to look at Ms Wilson in a manner that scared her. He said, “come on” and words to the effect of “I came and checked on you the other night and I was going to jump on you in your sleep but luckily I didn't because you would have freaked out and probably ran”. Ms Wilson got up and followed the offender to his bedroom as she was fearful of him.
27․This was the first occasion Ms Wilson had been into the offender's bedroom. The offender removed Ms Wilson's pants and underwear, laid out a towel on the bed and put Ms Wilson on top of the towel. The offender put the towel on the bed as he knew Ms Wilson was menstruating. Ms Wilson reiterated that she was menstruating, and the offender told her he did not care. He told her to give him “head” again and she said no.
28․Ms Wilson tried to sit back up and pick her pants up, but the offender pushed her back onto the bed. The offender moved Ms Wilson's legs onto the bed and spread them. The offender started to kiss Ms Wilson. Ms Wilson did not kiss him back and the offender bit Ms Wilson's lower lip. Following the bite, Ms Wilson felt that she had to kiss him.
29․At some point, the offender told Ms Wilson stories of things he had done in the past of a sexual nature. These stories only added to the fear she felt.
30․Ms Wilson was lying on her back on the bed and the offender was on top of her. Ms Wilson asked the offender what he was doing. The offender responded that he was going to fuck her and that he was “going to do everything he wants including anal”. Ms Wilson replied, “please, no.”
31․The offender then lifted Ms Wilson's legs up. Ms Wilson told him to stop but the offender ignored her. He put his penis in Ms Wilson's vagina. Ms Wilson thought that the intercourse went on for 40 minutes.
32․At the start of the intercourse, Ms Wilson started to cry but covered her mouth. She recalls that she did that to not hear herself scream. She went from covering her mouth and covering her eyes to “staying dead”. Ms Wilson tried not to look at the offender throughout the intercourse and she did not move.
33․The intercourse ended when the offender said, “I'm almost about to come”. The offender pulled his penis out of Ms Wilson's vagina and ejaculated on the towel on the bed. Ms Wilson's vagina hurt for some time and when she next menstruated, she was unable to use a tampon because of the pain.
34․After the offender ejaculated, he told Ms Wilson to put her clothes back on. The offender left the room to wash his penis in the bathroom. Ms Wilson realised her bra had been left in Tom's room and she walked back to retrieve it. Ms Wilson freaked out when the offender saw her walk into Tom's room and so she retrieved her bra and returned to the offender's room to dress.
35․The offender asked Ms Wilson for oral intercourse again. Ms Wilson said no and tried to get up and put her pants back on. The offender grabbed Ms Wilson's pants and threw them away.
36․The offender then put his penis into Ms Wilson's mouth again. The oral intercourse continued until Ms Wilson felt that she was going to vomit. Ms Wilson could taste vomit at the back of her throat and the offender ejaculated into Ms Wilson's mouth. Ms Wilson spat the contents of her mouth onto the towel on the bed.
37․The offender began to talk to her, telling her that she was not to tell anyone about what had happened, or the offender would hurt her and Tom. The offender was telling Ms Willson that she was going to sleep with him that night and that she was to stay in his bedroom. Ms Wilson started to put her clothing back on.
38․Ms Wilson moved to the other corner of the bed, as far as she could get from the offender. The offender asked Ms Wilson to come closer. Ms Wilson shook her head. In a lower tone, the offender again asked Ms Wilson to come to bed with him. Ms Wilson did so. The offender told Ms Wilson that she was spending the night with him. The offender was naked. Ms Wilson was wearing her pants and her bra. Ms Wilson was facing away from the offender. The front of his body was up against her back in the spooning position. His genital area was pushed up against Ms Wilson's buttocks.
39․Whilst in this position, the offender pulled Ms Wilson's bra up, causing it to rip, and grabbed at Ms Wilson's breasts. Ms Wilson had her arm across her breasts in an attempt to flatten them and restrict the offender's access to them, however the offender continued to grab at Ms Wilson's breasts by pushing his hands underneath the arm that was covering them.
40․Whilst in this position, the offender then pulled Ms Wilson's pants and underpants down, but not completely off. The offender then inserted his penis into Ms Wilson's vagina. The offender continued to move back and forth while his penis was in her vagina. The offender ejaculated whilst in this position.
41․During this act of intercourse, Ms Wilson attempted to strangle herself with one of her hands. She told police she was tiny compared to the offender and during the act, she laid there and cried.
42․The offender then moved Ms Wilson's hand onto his penis and caused her to rub his penis until she felt wetness.
43․Ms Wilson remained lying in bed with the offender until she asked to go to the toilet, to which he agreed. Whilst under the guise of going to the toilet, Ms Wilson returned to Tom's room to retrieve her phone.
44․Ms Wilson returned to the bedroom with the offender and lay awake in bed. She did not turn on her phone. Ms Wilson believed the offender was pretending to be asleep as he would talk to Ms Wilson, then go to sleep, and then arise again to peek over her shoulder.
45․Ms Wilson continued to lie there until approximately 6am. When the offender had finally gone to sleep, Ms Wilson got up and tried to make a call to police via 000. Due to issues with her phone, the call transferred to loudspeaker and the responder said, “ACT Policing how may I help you?” Ms Wilson requested Canberra City police station and she then saw the offender in the doorway watching her.
46․Upon seeing the offender watching her, Ms Wilson asked the police to conduct a welfare check on a friend of hers in order to avoid antagonising the offender.
47․After the call, the offender asked Ms Wilson what she was doing, and she explained that she had been requesting police conduct a welfare check on a friend whom she was worried about.
48․Ms Wilson then fell asleep in Tom's room. When she woke up, the offender again told Ms Wilson that she was not to tell anyone about what had happened or else he would hurt both her and Tom. Ms Wilson estimated the offender repeated this threat around three times during the incident and the morning after.
49․Ms Wilson left the offender's address at around 9am. She told two friends about what had happened and went to live with one of those friends.
50․Between 6 and 11 January 2023, the offender sent a number of text messages to Ms Wilson via Facebook Messenger. The offender also phoned Ms Wilson a number of times.
51․Most of the text messages between the offender and Ms Wilson were sent from the former to the latter. Often the offender would ask Ms Wilson to meet him at Gungahlin shops or the Belconnen mall or to cut the offender's hair. She responded by saying that she could not meet up with him.
52․The offender threatened Ms Wilson with not being able to see Tom again if she did not answer him.
53․After Tom was released on bail, the offender, Ms Wilson and Tom were together at the offender's house. The offender called Ms Wilson into the bathroom to cut his hair. Ms Wilson went into the bathroom with the offender and set up at the sink. Whilst in the bathroom, the offender grabbed Ms Wilson's arm and said, “Tom will never know, I promise you that. No one will ever know”. He then told Ms Wilson that if she was to tell anyone, the offender was going to hurt her and his son intensely with no regret.
54․Sometime later, Ms Wilson, Tom and the offender had a serious argument in person that continued via phone and text message. During this, the offender sent a text message to Ms Wilson stating, “Your [sic] a good fuck I tell ya”.
55․After Ms Wilson contacted the police to report the incidents, DNA analysis was carried out on the clothing she was wearing at the offender's home. The offender's DNA was found in semen stains on some of that clothing.
56․On Thursday, 4 May 2023, the offender participated in a record of interview with police. He denied the allegations and claimed that Ms Wilson had fabricated them because he had kicked her and Tom out of his home in early February 2023. The offender was arrested and has been in custody ever since.
57․There was no victim impact statement relied on in this matter but that does not mean that Ms Wilson was unharmed. She suffered physical injuries which persisted for about a month, but much more importantly, I am entitled to assume that the psychological effects upon her will be significant and long lasting.
Subjective circumstances
58․The offender is an Aboriginal man who was born in Sydney but brought up in Brewarrina in New South Wales by his parents. He had six siblings, all of whom are now deceased. His parents separated when he was 18. His mother was a member of the Stolen Generation, having been removed from her parents and placed in a girls' home.
59․He and his family lived in Aboriginal public housing for a while before leaving and living on the bank of the Barwon River. When the offender was 10, his family moved to a house on an Aboriginal mission in Brewarrina. Both his parents worked and there was neither drug use, nor domestic violence in his home. However, they were commonplace on the mission.
60․The offender told a psychologist that he was sexually abused by his father and three of his uncles from about the age of 10. He made no mention of this matter when a pre-sentence report was prepared. There was no evidence to corroborate this and there was no evidence that the offender had ever told anyone else that his father had sexually assaulted him from the age of 10. Despite that, in the absence of any challenge to the accuracy of what the offender told the psychologist, I will accept what he said for the purposes of these sentence proceedings.
61․When the offender was 14, he left school and got a job at the local meat works. He did not associate with friends or peers of his own age, because he was being taught traditional matters by his father and his mates were doing other things.
62․As I mentioned, his parents separated when he was 18. He moved with his mother and siblings to Dubbo, where he got in with the wrong crowd and began using drugs and drinking. He led a transient lifestyle for a while and has lived in many parts of Western New South Wales.
63․Given his early exposure to drugs, alcohol, and domestic violence, and being a descendant of a member of the Stolen Generation, it is clear that the Bugmy factors are enlivened in this case: see Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571. Being himself a victim of child sexual assault has, not surprisingly, had significant adverse impact on his mental wellbeing.
64․A psychologist who assessed him for the purposes of today's proceedings has concluded that at the time of the offence which I am to sentence him, he was suffering from a mental health impairment. His use of drugs and alcohol started at an early age, continues in the context of him using drugs to cope with the trauma arising from his upbringing, and he has a significant addiction, which explains his lengthy criminal history.
65․The experience of being a victim of sexual assault haunts him to this day. I take into account that both the offender and Ms Wilson have experienced the substantial adverse consequences which flow from being the victim of a sexual assault and that such consequences are likely to be long lasting.
Objective seriousness
66․I mentioned before that this was a very serious example of an offence of having sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16. There are a number of factors that justify this conclusion. They include:
(a)The age difference between Ms Wilson and the offender. As I have mentioned before, she was 15 while he was in his early 50s.
(b)Ms Wilson was vulnerable, in need of a place to stay, and the offender's son's girlfriend. She was entitled to expect that he would look after her, not abuse her repeatedly.
(c)By offering accommodation to Ms Wilson and allowing her to stay in his home, the offender assumed something of a position of trust, a position which he breached repeatedly.
(d)He used various methods to do what he wanted to do, starting with blackmail, and moving onto force, including ripping Ms Wilson's clothing.
(e)He did not use a condom and ejaculated in her vagina and her mouth.
(f)Ms Wilson suffered physical injuries which persisted for a month.
(g)He ignored her lack of consent, continuing to do what he wanted, despite her saying, “can we stop” and “no” on multiple occasions.
(h)Being a ‘rolled-up charge’, the offence to which he pleaded guilty encompasses many separate sexual acts.
(i)Those sexual acts occurred over a sustained period.
(j)The offender did not decide to do this as some sort of spur of the moment decision, telling Ms Wilson he had planned to “jump on” her on an earlier occasion.
(k)He tried to obtain Ms Wilson's silence about what he had done by threats, repeatedly telling her that she was not to tell anyone about what had happened, and if she did, he would hurt her and her boyfriend, his son.
(l)So awful was the experience for Ms Wilson that whilst the offender was having penile-vaginal intercourse with her, she actually attempted to strangle herself.
67․Mr Cooper for the offender points out that some features which would further aggravate this offence are absent. He points to such things as an absence of depravity and that the offender was not in company. It is not a matter of mitigation of matters which would otherwise aggravate the offence are absent. The same can be said about the lower level of violence. The offender did not need to be more violent than he was because he successfully blackmailed her.
68․That said, the offence was opportunistic in the sense that he did not lure Ms Wilson into his house, although once she was staying with him, he did plan to do what he eventually did.
69․It was also submitted that Ms Wilson was towards the upper end of the age range covered by the offence. That is true, but were she of three months older, the offender would not have been acting lawfully. He would have instead faced charges relating to Ms Wilson's lack of consent. Acquiescence obtained by blackmail does not constitute consent.
Consideration
70․Recognising that “ingenuity can always conjure up a case of greater heinousness” (Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 478), I am satisfied that, subjectively speaking, this case has many features which make it a particularly serious example of an offence of having sexual intercourse with a child between the ages of 10 and 16.
Purpose of sentencing
71․General deterrence is of prime importance in this sentencing exercise. Children like Ms Wilson in this case, who find themselves in need of somewhere to live, need to be protected against the predatory behaviours of people such as this offender.
72․Personal deterrence cannot be ignored as well, given the offender's lengthy and varied criminal history, which included sexual offending. He has been assessed as having a high risk of committing further offences and an above average risk of sexual reoffending.
73․All offences of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16 are serious, but as I have just noted, this is a particularly serious example of the offence. The sentence I impose upon the offender must mark that circumstance in a very concrete way. Members of the community are entitled to expect that courts are responding to offending of this kind in a way which demonstrates just how wrong the offender's conduct was.
Plea of guilty
74․The offender was committed for trial to this court on four counts of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 and one count of committing an act of committing an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16. He pleaded guilty to a rolled-up charge of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 on 15 January 2024 before a Criminal Case Conference which had been scheduled for 8 February 2024.
75․The prosecution case was remarkably strong. The accused's DNA was found in semen stains on Ms Wilson's clothing, and in January last year, he sent a text message to her saying, “Your [sic] a good fuck I tell ya”.
76․Despite the prosecution case being a strong one, it must be recognised that the offender's plea of guilty was not only of utilitarian benefit to the criminal justice system, but perhaps more importantly, spared Ms Wilson of potential re-traumatisation at trial. In such circumstances, I propose to discount the sentence which I would have otherwise imposed on the offender by 20 percent to reflect his plea of guilty.
Current sentencing practice
77․As regards sentencing practice, in his written submissions, Mr Cooper compared this matter to R v KC [2020] ACTSC 94, a single example of another case regarding current sentencing practice. An attempt to do that in New South Wales was once described as “deeply flawed”: R v Fong [2002] NSWCCA 320; 132 A Crim R 308 at 309.
78․I do not intend to be critical of Mr Cooper at all. It is axiomatic that in a smaller jurisdiction, there will be fewer comparable cases, and in any case, Mr Cooper did provide a table with three other cases. It is not his fault that the only comparable cases he was able to find were where charges of a different nature were involved. They were of limited utility. It is perhaps fortunate that cases with facts similar to the present are hard to find.
79․I have also had regard to the maximum penalty which the legislature has set for this offence. The maximum sentence specified in a statute not only confines the power of a court but also “informs the sentencing process by conveying [the legislature’s] view of the relative seriousness of the offence” (Hurt v The King [2024] HCA 8; 98 ALJR 485 at 493) and invites “comparison between the worst possible case and the case before the court”: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 at 372.
Non-parole period
80․Given the offender's history and particularly his childhood trauma, his lengthy addiction to drugs, and his comprehensive criminal history, it is important that he be assisted as much as possible on his release from custody. That is not done as a favour to him, it is done in order to do what can be done to protect the community.
81․Mr Cooper asked for a non-parole period of just less than the upper end of a 50 to 70 percent range. I accept that submission. The non-parole period I have chosen is the minimum I consider appropriate. The period of eligibility for parole is long enough to assist the offender's return to the community, should he wish to take advantage of the supports which should be offered to him.
Orders
82․For those reasons, the following orders are made:
(1)Pursuant to s 111(2)(c) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), it is ordered, until further order, that the complainant in proceedings SCC 210 of 2023 be referred to in the proceeding (including in any document to be filed with the Court, and in any affidavit or statement to be relied upon in the Court, save for the jurat of any affidavit required to be sworn) only by the pseudonym “Charlotte Wilson”.
(2)Pursuant to s 111(2)(c) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), it is ordered, until further order, that the offender’s son in proceedings SCC 210 of 2023 be referred to in the proceeding (including in any document to be filed with the Court, and in any affidavit or statement to be relied upon in the Court, save for the jurat of any affidavit required to be sworn) only by the pseudonym “Tom”.
(3)Pursuant to s 111(2)(c) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), it is ordered, until further order, that the disclosure (by publication or otherwise) of information or particulars that might enable the persons referred to in Orders 1 to 2 above to be identified or that would reveal their identity, other than by use of their pseudonyms, be prohibited save for:
(a)in any subpoena for production and/or attendance or notice for non-party production, in which it is reasonably necessary to identify the persons referred to in Orders 1 to 2 above by their true name;
(b)in communications between the legal representative for the parties, in which it is reasonably necessary to identify the persons referred to in Orders 1 to 2 above by their true name;
(c)in communications necessary for the conduct of the proceedings between the legal representatives for the parties and any party, witness or other person(s), in which it is reasonably necessary to identify the persons referred to in Orders 1 to 2 above by their true name, provided that:
(i) all such communications are conducted on a strictly confidential basis; and
(ii) a copy of these orders is provided to any witness or other person(s) with whom such communications are conducted.
(4)The offender is convicted of the offence of sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of 16 (CAN 4441/2023) and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 8 years, commencing on 4 May 2023 and expiring on 3 May 2031.
(5)I set a non-parole period of 5 years and six months commencing on 4 May 2023 and expiring on 3 November 2028.
| I certify that the preceding eighty-two [82] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Acting Justice Berman. Associate: Date: |
0
7
2