Director of Public Prosecutions v Velkoski (No.3)
[2018] VCC 646
•6 March 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-16-01995
CR-16-01996
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ORDAN VELKOSKI (No.3) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE SEXTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 – 25, 31 July, 1 – 4, 7 – 11, 14 – 16, 18, 21 – 25 August 2017 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 6 March 2018 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Velkoski (No.3) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 646 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal Law – Sexual Offences
Catchwords: Sexual Offences – Indecent act with a child under 16
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act, Judicial Proceedings Report Act,
Cases Cited: R v Clarkson (2011) 32 VR 361, Adamson v R [2015] VSCA 194, R v HMcL (2000) 203 CLR 452, Williams (1982) 5 A Crim R 81, McCullagh [2003] VSC 3, TY [2009] VSCA 226, Gordon [2013] VSCA 343, DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 148, DPP v Toomey (2006) VSCA 90
Sentence: TES: 5 years 3 months’ imprisonment with a minimum of 2 years 8 months’ to serve before becoming eligible for parole.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr N. Papas QC for trial and plea Ms S. Denham for plea and sentence | OPP |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Farrington | Patrick W. Dwyer |
HER HONOUR:
1 Ordan Velkoski, on 15 August 2017 you were convicted by a jury for the third time of nine charges of committing an indecent with a child under 16 in respect of two girls[1]. On this occasion, the jury found you not guilty of 3 charges of committing an indecent act, being two charges in respect of one of those two girls, and one charge in respect of a boy[2].
[1] Indictment no. C11605513.6 in which the complainants were MS, OA and GS.
[2] The prisoner was found not guilty of Charge 3 in respect of a boy, GS. At a previous trial, the prisoner had been found guilty of a different charge relating to GS.
2 On 25 August 2017 you were convicted by a different jury for the second time of four charges of committing an indecent act with a child under 16 in respect of a third girl[3].
[3] Indictment no. C11605513.7 in which the complainant was BZ.
3 Committing an indecent act with a child under 16 is an offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.
4 The evidence of the children was recorded in 2011 and 2013, and these recordings were produced as evidence in each trial held in 2013, 2015 and 2017. Thankfully that meant the children only gave evidence once to the police at a time close or closer to the events and were cross-examined only once in a court proceeding[4]. It follows that the same evidence was heard by different juries[5] in respect of each complainant.
[4] Chapter 8, Part 8.2, Divisions 5 and 6 Criminal Procedure Act 2009
[5] Accepting that there was some minor editing in respect of charges on which the prisoner had been acquitted at earlier trials or on appeal.
5 You maintain that none of these criminal acts happened and so there is no remorse shown by you for your offending, nor for the impact on your young victims and their parents.
6 I will briefly describe the offending for which you are to be sentenced today. In order to ensure the victims are not identified as required by law[6], I will continue to refer to them by the initials used throughout the long history of this case.
[6] Section 4 Judicial Proceedings Reports Act
7 Your wife conducted a Family Day Care Centre at your home, under the registration and monitoring of the local council. She was the registered carer, but you were not working in paid employment and so were often at your home when the children were there. The children, and their families, knew you very well. You had a Working with Children card, as did any other family member who was living there from time to time.
8 MS was a girl who attended day care at your home from the age of 1 in 2008. You were found guilty of two offences committed against her. When she was aged 4, in October 2011, while she was at your home for her care, you showed her your penis (Charge 1[7]). You then told her to touch your penis, and she did (Charge 2[8]). It was MS, a 4 year old, telling her parents of these offences on the day they happened that led to the investigation and ultimately to your trials for offences relating to four children.
[7] Indictment no. C11605513.6
[8] Ibid
9 OA was a girl who attended day care at your home during the school holidays when aged 7-9 years. You were found guilty of six offences committed against her and found not guilty in respect of two (Charges 8 and 9).
10 In late 2011, when she was aged 9, she was at your home for her care, and was alone in the living room. You approached her, grabbed her hand and despite her resistance, made her touch your penis over your clothing (Charge 4[9]).
[9] Ibid
11 On another occasion in late 2011, OA was at your home for her care in an upstairs room, and you asked her if you could hug her ‘to warm your hands’. You then placed your hand under her clothing and moved your fingers around the outside of her vagina (Charge 5[10]).
[10] Ibid
12 On a further occasion in late 2011, OA was at your home for her care, and was about to walk out of the house when you grabbed her, and again placed your hand under her clothing and touched her vagina. She told you to stop but you persisted until she screamed at you to stop and ran out of the house (Charge 6[11]).
[11] Ibid
13 On a further occasion in late 2011, OA was at your home for her care, and was in the dining room about to walk outside when you grabbed her and put one hand down the front of her pants, touching her vagina, and the other down the back of her pants, touching her bottom (Charge 7[12]).
[12] Ibid
14 On a further occasion in late 2011, OA was at your home for her care, and was in the living room when you grabbed her from behind and turned her to face you. You then pressed your body against her and performed what she described as ‘humping’ her. OA was asked a number of questions about what she meant by that and from the totality of her evidence, I am satisfied that the movement she described was an act simulating movement during sexual penetration, performed over clothing (Charge 10[13]).
[13] Ibid
15 On an occasion in late 2011 in the same school holidays as the occurrence of the previous offence, OA was at your home for her care and was again in the upstairs room. You told her to sit down, and when she did, you put your hand down the back of her pants and touched her bottom (Charge 11[14]). OA got up to leave the room and you held onto her collar. You then grabbed her hand and made her touch your penis (Charge 12[15]).
[14] Ibid
[15] Ibid
16 BZ was a girl who attended day care at your home from the age of 3 in 2008. After your first trial in 2013, when you were first convicted of the offences I have just described, BZ indicated to her mother that something had happened with you, and soon after, BZ spoke to police, leading to the investigation and your trial in 2015 for offences relating to her.
17 You committed the following offences against her when she was aged 3 to 5 years, and at your home for her care. On one occasion, she was at your home for her care, and when she was in the lounge room, you picked her up under her armpits, sat her on your arm, and touched the outside of her vagina (Charge 1[16]).
[16] Indictment no. C11605513.7
18 On another occasion, she was at your home for her care, and you again picked her up and touched the outside of her vagina (Charge 2[17]). Afterwards you told her not to tell anyone in a tone that she described as angry.
[17] Ibid
19 On another occasion, she was at your home for her care when aged about 3, playing with dolls in the lounge room while your wife was in the kitchen. You came into the room, unzipped your pants and told her to touch your penis. She was scared of you, and did so (Charge 3[18]).
[18] Ibid
20 On another occasion, she was at your home for her care when aged about 5, and you again picked her up and touched the outside of her vagina (Charge 4[19]).
[19] Ibid
21 All of these offences are serious offences, committed in a brazen manner in disregard of the risk of detection by your wife or other children for your own perverted sexual gratification. Your offending is made even more serious because:
· First, it constituted a gross breach of the trust the children and their parents had in you; you were a person who was present in the children’s lives for years, and at least from the children’s perspective, you were an adult who shared the role of caring for them[20].
[20] Eg. MS VARE Q12: “Who’s Joe?” A12: “Joe with Vesna”
OA VARE 1 Q10: “What are we here to talk about today?” A10: “At child care, Joe and Vesna.”
BZ VARE 1 Q20: “Who’s Joe?” A20: “The man who worked at the day care with Vesna.”
· Next, all the children were aged under 10, and two of them were aged 3, 4 and 5 at various stages of your offending against them, while you were a man of mature years aged in your late 50’s;
· Next, you engaged in physical force in the offences committed against OA in charges 4, 6 and 12 and persisted in your offending even when she resisted;
· Next you made each child touch you, using fear and/or your authority, in the offences committed against them in charges 2 and 12[21] for MS and OA, and charge 3[22] for BZ; and
· The offending against each child was not an isolated incident, but was part of a pattern of behaviour, and you offended multiple times against OA and BZ.
[21] Indictment no. C11605513.6
[22] Indictment no. C11605513.7
22 When it comes to children, it is presumed that they suffer harm from a sexual offence being committed against them, harm which can be long term and serious and both physical and psychological[23] and which includes future harm[24].
[23]R v Clarkson (2011) 32 VR 361, 368 [26], 371 [33]
[24]Adamson v R [2015] VSCA 194, [56]
23 I received statements as to the impact of your offending on the children and their parents[25]. In this case the presumption is borne out by the magnitude of the impact on your victims, and on their families. You stole the innocence of these little girls; you have caused them fear, anger, guilt and anxiety.
[25] Exhibit B
24 MS, the brave and strong little girl who spoke up as a four year old, wrote in her impact statement as a 5 year old, of being frightened and having her heart hurt. Yet, thankfully, according to her parents she is resilient and managed at that time to feel good about her future in keeping with the picture of flowers she drew under the title, "The future."
25 OA, the brave 9 year old who came to this country with her family in search of a better life only three years before you abused her, began holiday day care at your home one year after arrival in this country and who spoke up when police came to her home despite her fear, anger, frustration, hurt, sadness and annoyance about what you had done to her. In 2013, she said she was determined not to let you bring her education down, and that she was doing her best to get over what you had done. She understood that there were people to help her, and although I have no current information, I am hopeful that her strong character will be helping to bring her to a happier future.
26 BZ, abused by you from the ages of 3 to 5 years, has been extremely affected. Her mother wrote in 2015 of the depths of despair that BZ was suffering, along with full scale panic attacks and crippling anxiety, making her unable to attend school for months after she spoke to police and even by 2015, unable to participate in normal childhood activities. I have no current information but can only hope that with some time passing, and such assistance as she and her family needs, that her future is beginning to look brighter.
27 The overwhelming feelings of the three girls' parents are betrayal and guilt. Betrayal by you of their trust that they were putting their children in a safe place, and guilt at having, as it appears to them, in fact put their children in harm's way. I want to repeat the effect of what the two sentencing judges before me have said and say it to the parents directly - the only guilty person here is the one at the back of the court, as found by the juries. No-one else is responsible for what happened to your children. You chose a day care facility recommended by a council that monitored the facility and had staff perform unannounced home visits. The perpetrator was wily and cunning enough to practise his perversion despite the risk of being observed by his wife or other children or anyone else attending the home. That is his guilt and not yours.
28 While the children were thankfully spared the ordeal of giving evidence more than once, not so two lots of parents. They speak eloquently of the battle to keep their families on a level of normality through multiple trials and appeals, affecting them emotionally and financially. This is part of the impact on them and I take it into account. I wish all the children and their families well for the future.
29 Returning to you Mr Velkoski. I turn now to the matters that have been submitted on your behalf.
30 First, I take into account that you were entitled to plead not guilty despite the strength of the case against you, and entitled to seek leave to appeal when convicted. As a result of that process[26] you have been put on your trial before multiple juries, with five trials proceeding to verdict before three different judges over a period of five years, and have twice before now been sentenced to imprisonment serving up to now, about 2 years 2 months in prison in total, before twice being released on bail after a successful appeal to await further trial. I accept that process has taken its toll on you and is a factor in mitigation.
[26] A procedural history is contained in the Defence Written Submissions – Exhibit 1
31 Next, I take into account that before you committed the offences beginning in 2008 (against BZ), you were a man of good character, and evidence was given at the trial to that effect from those who knew you[27] and I also received references on the plea. You have not committed any offences since 2011.
[27] References were also provided for the plea – Exhibit 5
32 Next, I take into account your background. You came to Australia from Macedonia as a 19 year old and are now aged 65. Your parents who also immigrated, are aged in their 90’s and you have daily contact. You had a solid work history until suffering a back injury in the early 1990’s and since then you have received a disability support pension. Around that time, you also suffered a series of heart attacks. You suffer from hearing loss, and in 2013 you had eye surgery[28].
[28] Exhibit 2
33 You and your wife have three adult children: a son and two daughters. Their current circumstances are not good; one daughter was diagnosed with breast cancer last year shortly before your trials before me began, and has been receiving treatment ever since, including a mastectomy. She is due to have a second mastectomy next month. It was because of your daughter's chemotherapy treatment and unknown prognosis that I allowed you to remain on bail after the verdicts of guilty in both trials, for you to spend time with her before the plea and sentence, it being my view then that a further sentence of imprisonment was likely to be imposed. Over the same period, the other daughter has left two abusive relationships, and along with her children, has returned to live with you and your wife for support.
34 Your wife gave evidence in each of the trials and has supported you throughout the history of these cases. This has also taken its toll on her, along with the loss of her business and possibly her reputation. Since the trials before me, your wife has been diagnosed with reactive depression and her doctor's opinion is that her mental health is now fragile[29].
[29] Exhibit 4
35 It was submitted that these circumstances are exceptional, and that I should therefore take the hardship your family will experience if you are returned to prison into account as a sentencing consideration. While these are sad circumstances, in my view they are not exceptional. However, I accept that these matters will impact on you and make imprisonment harder for you if you are returned to prison.
36 Your own health has deteriorated since the trials were held last year. You recently had back surgery and your mobility is still restricted[30]. At the plea in February and again today, you are using a wheeled walker, and were having two physiotherapy sessions per week. I accept that these are factors which were not present during your previous periods in prison and would make imprisonment more of a burden to you if returned to prison.
[30] Exhibit 2
37 It was submitted on your behalf that the sentence I impose today should be moderated by the significant difficulties you experienced during your previous times in custody. I was referred to the record which shows you were hospitalised following an assault while previously in prison[31]. This assault has had its sequel in your recent back surgery. I take into account that because of your current physical condition you would be more likely to feel even more vulnerable if returned to prison, having experienced an assault there.
[31] Exhibit 6
38 I was also referred to the reports of Mr Jeffrey Cummins[32]. His reports from 2013 and 2015 were provided to the respective sentencing judges in those years as to your reactive depression. Her Honour Judge Campton in 2013 took into account the possible deterioration in your mental health during a sentence of imprisonment. If I were to impose the same sentences as Her Honour imposed, I could not take that into account for a second time. In 2015, Her Honour Judge Hampel declined to take your reactive depression into account, saying that “your symptoms are all directly attributable to your continued denial of your offending, and your anger that you have again been found guilty”[33]. If I were to impose the same sentences as Her Honour imposed, I agree with Her Honour’s view and would not moderate the sentences on that basis.
[32] Exhibit 3
[33]DPP v Velkoski [2015] VCC 1844 [40]
39 I was provided with a current report from Mr Cummins[34]. He confirmed his assessment of your risk of re-offending as within the moderate range, specifically low-moderate. He also confirmed that the 2017 report should be read in conjunction with the 2015 report. In that, he said you would as at 2015, as a result of the jury verdicts, be diagnosed with sexual deviance in the form of paedophilia. Reading the reports together then, as a result of the 2017 verdicts, that diagnosis would therefore remain. Mr Cummins said you were willing to undertake a Sex Offenders Program, but as you continue to deny the offending, that will prove difficult. My understanding is that a first step in the program is an acceptance of the offending; however, treatment of some sort may still be offered even if you continue to deny the offending and deny your paedophilia.
[34] Exhibit 3 – Report dated 20/11/2017
40 Lastly, as to your personal circumstances, I note that you have been seeing a psychologist regularly since the day after police interviewed you in respect of the first allegations, those made by MS in October 2011. I received a report from Mr Stojcevski[35] in which he detailed your, "diagnoses, prognoses and treatments" in a long list over two pages. No diagnosis of paedophilia is mentioned. Mr Stojcevski does say that you have aged significantly and you are more feeble than before your incarceration, although he does not specify if he means your first or second time in custody. However, I do take into account that because of your current psychological condition, you would be likely to feel more vulnerable if returned to prison.
[35] Exhibit 3
41 As to your prospects for rehabilitation, in my view, they are guarded because of your denial of the offending and therefore you are less likely to engage, or to engage in a meaningful way, in the treatment for your paedophilia. While I accept that you are in poorer health now than when you committed the offences, you still pose a risk to underage children. While there is now no risk to children accessed through a day care facility in your home, I consider there is still a risk to children with whom you come into contact, and I note that you have a number of grandchildren in your target age range.
42 Apart from those matters personal to you to which I have referred, I must also take into account deterrence, especially general deterrence which is of the utmost importance in cases involving sexual offending against children, and even more so, when committed by figures of authority over children. That means that by my sentence of you the court must seek to deter other men from committing sexual offences against children, especially those within their care or in a home environment. Further, because of my finding that there is a risk of you committing more offences, my sentence must also seek to deter you from re-offending.
43 While it is clear that the previous sentences should normally be taken as a ceiling, I am not bound by them[36]. The applicable principles for this sentence in these circumstances appear to me to be as follows:
[36]R v HMcL (2000) 203 CLR 452, 475-6; Chen [1993] 2 VR 139, 158-160, citing with approval Williams (1982) 5 A Crim R 81; McCullagh [2003] VSC 3; TY [2009] VSCA 229, [78] – [82]
· the sentencing judge on a re-trial must exercise [her] own judgement and [her] own discretion, having regard to the offence committed, the circumstance of its commission, the antecedents of the prisoner and his personal circumstance, the sentence imposed on [earlier] conviction, and the principle that unless there is some strong ground, there should not be a disparity between the sentences imposed on the first and [subsequent] occasions[37]; and
· if, having regard to the [earlier] sentence and policy considerations, and all other factors relevant to sentence, the [subsequent] judge is of the opinion that the [earlier] sentence was inadequate or inappropriate, the [subsequent] judge must act on that opinion[38].
[37]Williams, 83-84
[38]Williams Ibid, HMcL, 475-6
44 The prosecutor submitted that I should impose a sentence of imprisonment on all charges with a non-parole period, and further submitted that a non-parole period somewhere in the range of the amount of time already served was accepted by the prosecution. While the previous sentence(s) are normally a ‘ceiling’, the prosecution did not accept that my sentence should be arrived at simply by deducting the sentences imposed in 2015 where there were acquittals in 2017, as it was submitted this would not take into account the principle of totality applied in the 2015 sentence.
45 Your counsel conceded that a term of imprisonment must be imposed but taking into account all the matters in mitigation, submitted that you be sentenced to the time you have already served and a lengthy community correction order.
46 I do not consider that proposed sentence would meet all the sentencing objectives in this case. I consider there is no alternative to a sentence of imprisonment on all charges. As a result I did not seek an assessment for a community correction order.
47 Applying the principles for sentencing after a re-trial, I am not of the opinion that the earlier sentences were altogether inadequate or inappropriate[39]. While I might have imposed higher sentences if unfettered by the previous sentences, adopting Her Honour Judge Hampel's sentencing remarks, any different sentence imposed by me would have been within the range of appropriate sentences as were the previous sentences.
[39]Williams 83-84; HMcL, 475-6
48 Further, there is no strong ground for a disparity between the sentences imposed on the first and subsequent occasions[40]. Moreover, there are more matters to take into account in mitigation than at the time of the previous sentences.
[40]Williams ibid
49 In the exercise of my own sentencing discretion, I have decided to impose the same sentences as those imposed by Her Honour Judge Campton and Her Honour Judge Hampel for the charges relating to MS and OA, and the same sentences as those imposed by Her Honour Judge Hampel for the charges relating to BZ, with the same orders for concurrency.
50 Although that will have the effect of the arithmetical deductions submitted by the prosecution to be inappropriate, I have not approached the sentencing discretion in that way. I consider that the total sentence I propose strikes a balance between the need to consider totality (moderated by the serious sex offender regime[41] and which I would have approached differently if sentencing for the first time) and the need to avoid a disparity between the earlier and subsequent sentences where there is no strong ground for it.
[41]R v HMcL (2000) 203 CLR 452, 475-6; Chen [1993] 2 VR 139, 158-160, citing with approval Williams (1982) 5 A Crim R 81; McCullagh [2003] VSC 3; TY [2009] VSCA 229, [78] – [82]
51 As for the mitigating circumstances, I have decided to set a lower non-parole period to take these into account. However, in all the circumstances I am of the view that a minimum term of 2 years 2 months' imprisonment is not sufficient, and so you will serve some further time in prison.
52 Before I finally turn to the sentence, there are two matters that I must deal with. The first matter is that as a result of my sentence today you again become a registrable sex offender. You will be required within 7 days of your release from custody to report your personal details and begin a regime of annual reporting required by the Sex Offenders Registration Act and be otherwise subject to the Act for the rest of your life. My Associate will now ask you to sign a document to acknowledge that you have received notice of these obligations.
53 The second matter is that you are to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender after sentences of imprisonment are imposed on charges 1 and 2 on the first indictment. Although you are to be sentenced as a first time sex offender, the factors that make your offending serious apply from the first charge, and there is no alternative to a term of imprisonment for all charges.
54 As a result of your status as a serious sex offender for all charges after charge 2 on the first indictment, I am required to regard the protection of the community from you as the principal purpose for which sentence is imposed. In order to achieve this purpose, I have the power to impose a sentence greater than is proportionate to your offences. The prosecution do not seek that and I do not intend to do that.
55 It is also necessary for the sentence I impose on all charges after charge 2 on the first indictment to be wholly cumulative on the other charges unless I order otherwise because of your status as a serious sex offender. As I have said, I have decided to order the same concurrency as that ordered by the previous sentencing judges. In saying that, I have also had regard to the limits the serious sex offender sentencing regime places on the application of the principle of totality[42] for all charges after charge 2 on the first indictment, and if you were being sentenced for the first time, the orders for concurrency would have been less.
[42]HMcL v R (2000) 174 ALR 1, [76]; Gordon [2013] VSCA 343, [74]
56 Despite the factors that mitigate the seriousness of your offending, these are offences which the community expects to result in stern punishment. As courts have said,
"A society which fails to protect its children from sexual abuse by adults, particularly those entrusted with their care, is degenerate."[43]
[43] Hedigan AJA, cited in DPP v Toomey [2006] VSCA 90, [18]
57 and
"Reflecting community views, courts have condemned in the strongest terms sexual offending against children by those responsible for their care."[44]
[44]DPP v Dalgliesh(a pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 148, [43]
58 Although you were not strictly responsible for their care, that you were in such a position of authority in respect of the children was the expectation by the council who required you to have a Working with Children check, and it was the perception of the children, and it was the basis of the trust of their parents.
59 The court must impose a sentence which is just in all the circumstances and reflects the community's abhorrence of sexual violence, particularly committed against children, with the damage that has caused.
60 On Indictment No.C11605513.6 you are convicted and sentenced as follows.
61 On charge 1 (exposing penis to MS) - 3 months' imprisonment;
62 On charge 2 (making MS touch your penis) - 8 months' imprisonment;
63 On charge 4 (touching the vagina of OA) - 6 months' imprisonment;
64 On charge 5 (touching the vagina of OA) - 12 months' imprisonment;
65 On charge 6 (touching the vagina of OA) -12 months' imprisonment;
66 On charge 7 (touching the vagina and bottom of OA) - 12 months' imprisonment;
67 On charge 10 (‘humping OA’) - 4 months' imprisonment;
68 On charge 11 (touching the bottom of OA) - 3 months' imprisonment;
69 On charge 12 (making OA touch your penis) - 6 months' imprisonment;
70 The sentence of 12 months on charge 5 is the base sentence. I direct that six months of the sentences imposed on charges 6 and 7, five months of the sentence imposed on charge 2, three months of the sentence imposed on charge 12, two months of the sentences imposed on charges 1, 4 and 10, and one month of the sentence imposed on charge 11 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on charge 5 and on each other.
71 That makes an effective sentence for indictment no.C11605513.6 of 3 years, 3 months.
72 On indictment no.C11605513.7, you are convicted and sentenced as follows.
73 On charge 1 (touching BZ on her vagina) - 12 months' imprisonment;
74 On charge 2 (touching BZ on her vagina) -12 months' imprisonment;
75 On charge 3 (making BZ touch your penis) - 15 months' imprisonment;
76 On charge 4 (touching BZ on her vagina) - 12 months' imprisonment;
77 The sentence of 15 months on charge 3 is the base sentence. I direct that five months of the sentences imposed on charges 1, 2 and 4 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on charge 3 and on each other.
78 That makes an effective sentence for indictment no.C11605513.7 of 2 years, 6 months' imprisonment.
79 I direct that two years of the sentence imposed on indictment no.C11605513.7 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on indictment no. C11605513.6. That makes a total effective sentence of 5 years 3 months’ imprisonment.
80 I direct that you serve 2 years, 8 months before becoming eligible for parole.
81 I declare that you have served 813 days in pre-sentence detention. These will be deducted administratively from your sentence.
82 I declare that in respect of charges 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 on indictment no.C11605513.6, and charges 1 - 4 on indictment no.C11605513.7, you have been sentenced as a serious sex offender and I direct that this be entered into the records of the court.
83 I have expressed the orders for concurrency and cumulation in the usual way rather than as required by the serious sex offender provisions to make them more easily understood and to be in line with the previous sentence of Her Honour Judge Hampel.
84 I propose to provide a table attached to the sentence in a similar form to Her Honour Judge Hampel.
- - -
On Indictment no. C11605513.6, total effective sentence: 3 years 3 months
| Charge | Original charge no | Child/conduct | Term | Cumulation |
| 1 | 4 | Exposing penis to MS | 3 months | 2 months |
| 2 | 5 | Making MS touch penis | 8 months | 5 months |
| 4 | 7 | Touching vagina of OA | 6 months | 2 months |
| 5 | 9 | Touching vagina of OA | 12 months | Base |
| 6 | 12 | Touching vagina of OA | 12 months | 6 months |
| 7 | 10 | Touching vagina and bottom of OA | 12 months | 6 months |
| 10 | 14 | Humping OA | 4 months | 2 months |
| 11 | 15 | Touching bottom of OA | 3 months | 1 month |
| 12 | 16 | Making OA touch penis | 6 months | 3 months |
On indictment no. C11605513.6, total effective sentence: 2 years 6 months
| Charge | Child / Conduct | Term | Cumulation |
| 1 | Touch BZ’s vagina | 12 months | 5 months |
| 2 | Touch BZ’s vagina | 12 months | 5 months |
| 3 | Make BZ touch penis | 15 months | Base |
| 4 | Touch BZ’s vagina | 12 months | 5 months |
HER HONOUR: Does counsel need me to go through the orders for cumulation and concurrency again?
MR FARRINGTON: No Your Honour.
MS DENHAM: No Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Thank you. All right, we'll just have printed out the orders including - we have it printed out thank you. This is the Sex Offender Registration. So although you have been registered as a sex offender previously on convictions in the other trials, it is necessary after these convictions that you be registered again. Mr Farrington, would you accompany my associate to Mr Velkoski - - -
MR FARRINGTON: Yes Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: - - - in order to answer any questions. Thank you. There are no further orders required?
MS DENHAM: No Your Honour.
MR FARRINGTON: Your Honour, if there's just one matter that I could raise. It's in relation to custody management.
HER HONOUR: I will be noting on the order that there are health issues and I propose to provide at the very least the copy of the letter from the general practitioner listing the medications.
MR FARRINGTON: Yes Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: If you consider that there are other materials from exhibits that should be provided then perhaps you can let my associate know when I leave the Bench.
MR FARRINGTON: We will do Your Honour. Just the one matter that I was hoping Your Honour could note is that in terms of any I guess search that he undergoes when he goes into the custodial environment, we would just ask that the persons who conduct that search exercise caution. His mobility is incredibly limited at the moment.
HER HONOUR: Yes.
MR FARRINGTON: So caution does need to be exercised. The second aspect if we have medications here but I don't think Your Honour has any power in relation to a ruling that medication ought be accepted, so we'll take that up downstairs.
HER HONOUR: I think that's appropriate. Thank you Mr Farrington.
MR FARRINGTON: As Your Honour pleases.
HER HONOUR: So if I can just indicate to those custodial officers in court that if you or any other officers are dealing with Mr Velkoski by way of a search, he has very recently, only in the last month or so had back surgery and so that's to be taken into account. If you could relay that onto the Corrections authorities further I would be grateful.
MR FARRINGTON: I'm grateful Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: As I've indicated there will be custody issues noted on the order that you will receive. Could I finally once again thank everyone for their attendance and assistance and the dignity that everyone has displayed in the difficult circumstances of this case.
MR FARRINGTON: If Your Honour pleases.
HER HONOUR: Thank you, adjourn until 10.30.
- - -
0
9
0