Director of Public Prosecutions v Velos
[2022] VCC 423
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-21-01918
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JIM VELOS |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE D SEXTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Plea – Shepparton; Further Plea & Sentence - Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 23 November 2021; 11 March 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 31 March 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Velos | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 423 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Common Law Assault; Recklessly Cause Serious Injury; Affray
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited: Winch v R (2010) 27 VR 658; Azzopardi v R; Baltatzis v R; Gabriel v
R (2011) 35 VR 43; R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169; DPP v Heyfron [2019] VSCA 130; DPP v Andrews [2021] VCC 1125; DPP v Russell (2014) 44 VR 471
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 15 months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms C Cameron Ms J Malobabic | Solicitor for Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr L Waugh | Slater and King |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Jim Velos, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of common law assault which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, one charge of recklessly causing serious injury which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment, and one charge of affray which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
Circumstances of the Offending
2The circumstances of your offending were set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening on Plea dated 26 October 2021, Exhibit A at your plea hearing. That document sets out the factual basis of the offending for which you will be sentenced. Your offending can be briefly summarised.
3On Saturday 20 March 2021, Kalvin Ewart was celebrating his 24th birthday with a number of friends, including Kane Lewis, in the Shepparton area. During the course of the evening, both Mr Ewart and Mr Lewis had attended a number of venues in Shepparton, including the Victoria Hotel, and had consumed a number of alcoholic beverages. At about 4.45am on 21 March, they left the Victoria Hotel and were standing near a taxi rank nearby, waiting to hail a taxi home. The events that followed outside the Victoria Hotel were captured on CCTV footage, which was played at your plea hearing, now tendered and marked Exhibit K, and which I have subsequently viewed closely.
4Mr Ewart saw another man, Branden Lindrea, a relative of both you and Mr Shaquill Joachim, your co-offender in this matter, also standing near the taxi rank, and Mr Ewart spoke with them. Both you and Mr Joachim were also present outside the Victoria Hotel at this point, standing nearby. You both overheard Mr Ewart speaking with Mr Lindrea and became agitated. You both then began to push Mr Ewart, who backed away from the two of you, with Kane Lewis next to Mr Ewart. As you continued to push Mr Ewart with both hands to the chest, both he and Mr Lewis walked backwards from both you and Mr Joachim. At this point, Mr Joachim approached Mr Lewis and punched him at least three times to the head, causing Mr Lewis to fall to the ground. You then took a step towards Mr Ewart and punched him with what was referred to in the Summary of Prosecution Opening on Plea as a “king hit” to the head. As a result, Mr Ewart, apparently unconscious, fell immediately to the ground and struck the right side of his head on the footpath. Your conduct in this regard forms the basis of Charge 2 on the indictment, causing serious injury recklessly.
5Mr Joachim continued to assault Mr Lewis, by kicking him to the head and pushing him. You then pushed Mr Lewis before walking away from the scene of the offending. Your conduct with regards to pushing Mr Lewis, after he had already been assaulted by your co‑offender, Mr Joachim, forms the basis of Charge 1 on the indictment, common law assault.
6There were a number of witnesses to the assaults, some of whom attempted to intervene and stop you and Mr Joachim from assaulting the victims. Your use of unlawful violence in these circumstances forms the basis of Charge 3 on the indictment, affray.
7Immediately following your assault on Mr Ewart, he was observed to be on the ground, with his eyes rolling and bleeding from the ear, and shaking. A Triple Zero call was made and ambulance officers subsequently attended. Both Mr Ewart and Mr Lewis were treated initially by ambulance officers and then conveyed to Goulburn Valley Health.
8In relation to Mr Ewart, the details of the injuries sustained and treatment provided were set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening. Further details were contained in a report from Dr Rachel Marr of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, dated 10 August 2021, Exhibit J at your plea hearing. The initial Goulburn Valley Health Emergency Department triage notes referred to a loss of consciousness as a result of being punched to the head and falling to the ground, reportedly lasting somewhere from two to five minutes. Mr Ewart was subsequently placed into an induced coma before being airlifted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. He remained at the Royal Melbourne Hospital for some four days, being discharged on 25 March 2021. As a result of being assaulted by you, Mr Ewart sustained a traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage to the left frontoparietal and left temporal region, and intraparenchymal haemorrhage (that is, bleeding within the tissue of the brain) in the left anterior temporal lobe, right posterior parietal and occipital scalp haematoma, coup-contrecoup injuries (that is, injuries inside the skull at the direct point of impact, coup, or on the opposite side of impact, contrecoup), and a suspected ear canal fracture. Thankfully, these injuries in and around Mr Ewart’s brain did not require surgery, rather careful monitoring and specialised management.
Victim Impact
9In contrast to your co-offender, Mr Joachim, who assaulted Mr Lewis by punching him at least three times to the head and then kicking Mr Lewis twice to the head and pushing him, your assault on Mr Lewis, Charge 1 on the indictment, is limited to pushing him after you had assaulted Mr Ewart, before you walked away from the scene of the offending.[1]
[1]Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 26 October 2021 at [18].
10A Victim Impact Statement from Mr Lewis was made on 31 August 2021 and tendered at your plea hearing, marked Exhibit C. Whilst to a large extent, Mr Lewis refers to the impacts of the physical injuries sustained by the assault that would be referrable to the assault by Mr Joachim, I have nevertheless taken into account in a general sense Mr Lewis’s Victim Impact Statement, where he details the emotional, social and financial impacts of the assault on him, in formulating an appropriate sentence in your case with regards to Charge 1.
11Your victim in relation to Charge 2, Kalvin Ewart, completed a Victim Impact Statement on 30 August 2021, which was tendered at your plea hearing and marked Exhibit B. That Victim Impact Statement was not read aloud at your plea hearing, at the request of Mr Ewart. Out of respect for Mr Ewart, I will not now detail the contents of that statement, save to say that he refers to the considerable impacts of your offending upon him, which have included considerable anxiety, constant migraines, and have caused him to relocate away from Shepparton.
12At your further plea hearing on 11 March 2022, supplementary material was tendered by the prosecution with regards to the impact of your offending on Mr Ewart. A report from psychologist, Megan McCabe, from the Victorian Counselling and Psychological Services dated 10 March 2022, was tendered by the Prosecution and marked Exhibit G. According to Ms McCabe, Mr Ewart has engaged in counselling as a result of the assault. He has experienced symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder since the assault and, according to Ms McCabe, “his life has been fundamentally changed as a result of the incident and he is still struggling with recovery”. Ms McCabe referred to Mr Ewart struggling with his mental health on a daily basis. He experiences hypervigilance when outside of the home, has experienced panic attacks in certain settings, has had to relocate from Shepparton, and still endures headaches and back pain which has been debilitating and at times impacted upon his ability to work.
13Victim Impact Statements are an important means through which victims of crime can meaningfully participate in the sentencing process, by informing the Court of the often catastrophic consequences of offending upon them. In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I have taken into consideration the Victim Impact Statements, particularly the material relating to Kalvin Ewart.
Procedural History
14A few days after the incident on 25 March 2021, you were arrested by police and participated in an interview, where footage of your assault on Mr Ewart and Mr Lewis was played to you, before police asked you questions about your conduct. Your answers were summarised in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea at paragraph 27. In that interview, you referred to Mr Ewart walking up to Branden Lindrea and having a go at him about some beef that they had, and that you only threw a hit because you saw a hit being thrown, so your first instinct was to throw a punch before you got hit. You referred to not thinking of hitting Mr Ewart, “but more just tap him” and you referred to “I just went bang and he just, like, fell and I said ‘oh, fuck’. When I saw him unconscious I was like, ‘shit’, like I really hurt him … I waited for him to see if he was moving, and that, and that’s when I left … I was just confused because I knew I hurt him.” Following your interview, you were bailed. I was informed that you subsequently offered to plead guilty to the charges upon which you will now be sentenced, on 16 August 2021.
15Your matter commenced before me in the Koori Court, sitting at Shepparton, on 23 November 2021. A further plea hearing took place before me on 11 March 2022, when the matter was adjourned for sentencing today.
Nature and Gravity of the Offending and Your Level of Responsibility
16Whilst your offending with regards to Charges 1 and 3 on the indictment, common law assault and affray, could be described as reasonably modest examples of those particular crimes, the same cannot be said for Charge 2 on the indictment, recklessly causing serious injury.
17The gravity of the recklessly cause serious injury charge is, of course, reflected in the statutory maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. In my view, your offending in this regard represents a serious example of the crime of recklessly causing serious injury. Your conduct can accurately be described, in my view, as serious street violence, which is a matter of considerable public concern.
18In contrast to other cases, your offending is limited to a single punch to Mr Ewart. However, that punch was delivered with force to a vulnerable part of the body, Mr Ewart’s head. It must have been delivered with sufficient force to cause Mr Ewart to fall to the ground and it seems lose consciousness. In accordance with the principles articulated in Winch v R,[2] the seriousness of any particular instance of recklessly causing serious injury involves considering both the degree of probability that serious injury would result, and the degree of seriousness of the injury thus foreseen. In your case, a punch of this nature to the head is clearly a highly dangerous act, and in delivering such a punch you must have foreseen at least a reasonable probability of serious injury. Your assault on Mr Ewart, who was simply out, celebrating his 24th birthday, was totally unprovoked. As is clear from the CCTV footage, he was retreating from you at the time you struck him. Your physical posture, both immediately before and after punching Mr Ewart can only in my view be described as aggressive and menacing. Even as Mr Ewart lay helpless on the ground with you standing over him, your demeanour remained, in my view, aggressive. Furthermore, your assault on Mr Ewart took place in the broader context of aggression by you and your co‑offender, Mr Joachim, with regards to Mr Ewart and Mr Lewis, hence your criminal liability with regards to Charges 1 and 3. In that regard, I accept the prosecution’s submission that the presence of your co‑offender, Mr Joachim, is an aggravating feature of this offence. Finally, the injuries sustained by Mr Ewart were extensive, serious, and it seems long lasting. He was placed into an induced coma before being air lifted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, where multiple brain injuries and other injuries were noted. The ongoing psychological effects of your assault on Mr Ewart are considerable. In all the circumstances, these factors in combination in my view make this a serious example of the offence of recklessly causing serious injury.
[2](2010) 27 VR 658 at [36].
19In terms of your culpability, I accept that in all likelihood your conduct with regards to Mr Ewart was not premeditated. Whilst you have maintained that you acted out of a sense of panic upon realising that a punch had been thrown, I do not accept that your actions were driven by panic - the video footage is inconsistent with such a claim, and in any event, in my view this would in no way decrease your moral culpability for your conduct. On your own account, you had been drinking alcohol excessively on this day. You have indicated that you had not previously consumed alcohol to this extent, and had no experience of fighting. According to Consulting, Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, Mr Jeffrey Cummins, in his report dated 13 January 2022, Exhibit V4 at your further plea hearing:
“Extreme though it may sound, it is my opinion the most likely explanation for his offending was that whilst heavily intoxicated he reacted totally inappropriately to the threat that he could be physically assaulted and he reacted to that threat by swinging a king-hit under circumstances where he had no experience of fighting and therefore no concept of his own physical force.”
20Given your absence of any prior criminal history, I am prepared to accept your inexperience with regards to fighting, and in all the circumstances that this extremely serious, unprovoked, and cowardly assault by you was likely caused by excessive alcohol consumption on your part. However, whilst this may contextualise your conduct, it in no way excuses your behaviour. You were 19 years old at the time of committing the offending. The law recognises that young people are more prone to engaging in rash, impulsive, thoughtless decision making, and may act without the ‘insight, judgment and self-control of those who are older’.[3] Your moral culpability for your offending is therefore reduced as a result of your youthfulness, however, in all the circumstances remains significant.
[3] Azzopardi v R; Baltatzis v R; Gabriel v R (2011) 35 VR 43 at [34].
Personal Circumstances
21You are now 20 years of age, turning 21 on 29 August 2022. At the time of your offending, you were just 19.
22Your family heritage is Aboriginal, on your mother’s side, of the Kamilaroi people. You were born and raised in Shepparton, where you live with your parents, three younger siblings, and your girlfriend, Chelsea, with whom you have been in a relationship since approximately April last year. Your family and partner are clearly supportive of you, given their involvement in the hearings with regards to this matter, and the character references provided in your case, tendered and marked ‘Exhibit V2’ at your Plea Hearing. I note in that regard that your mother, father, partner and grandmother are presently in Court for this sentencing hearing.
23You have no prior convictions, obviously a matter standing to your credit.
24You were educated to Year 12 level in 2019. Since then, with the exception of a gap year at the end of your education, you have obtained seasonal work at SPC in Shepparton. I was informed that you are currently working there, and have been doing so since February of this year, working an average of 40 hours per week. You have indicated a desire to embark upon an electrical apprenticeship, but you have apparently delayed these plans due to your current court case.
25You have been involved in football for some years, playing for some three years with the Rumbalara Football Club and then three years with Tatura, your last activity in this regard taking place in 2020.
26According to psychologist, Jeffrey Cummins, who assessed you for the purposes of your plea hearing and provided a report dated 13 January 2022, whilst you have had some episodes of encountering difficulty in ceasing drinking alcohol once you had commenced, you did not meet the diagnostic criteria for a binge drinking disorder. You reported that you commenced drinking alcohol in moderation at the age of 18, but essentially did not report a problematic history with regards to the consumption of alcohol.
27You did however, consistent with your police interview, report to Mr Cummins that you had consumed an excessive quantity of alcohol on the day of your offending. You reported having commenced drinking early in the day, along with your
co-offender and cousin, Mr Joachim, and that you had essentially consumed alcohol throughout the day before attending at the Victoria Hotel at Shepparton later that evening where you continued drinking. In relation to your offending, you essentially provided a similar narrative to that provided to police in your interview, that is, in the context of intoxication, you panicked after seeing punches thrown and then “threw a punch and knocked Kalvin out”.[4][4]Psychological Report of Jeffrey Cummins dated 13 January 2022 at [29].
28You have reported not consuming any alcohol since your arrest on 25 March 2021.
29According to Mr Cummins, you were embarrassed and ashamed regarding your offending behaviour, and displayed appropriate empathy regarding the impact of your offending on the two victims, particularly Mr Ewart. According to Mr Cummins, your overall risk for committing a further offence of violence is low, and your protective factors against violence risk is moderate-high and trending towards high. Nevertheless, Mr Cummins recommended that you participate in some form of alcohol counselling/education and in a men’s behaviour change program or an anger management program.[5]
[5]Ibid at [35].
Sentencing Factors
30The Sentencing Act 1991 requires me to have regard to various factors in formulating an appropriate sentence in your case. I have already referred to the maximum penalties, the nature and gravity of your offending and the impact on your victims, together with your level of responsibility for the offending. I have also referred to your previous character.
31As highlighted by your counsel, Mr Waugh, in a helpful plea on your behalf, there are a number of mitigatory factors relevant to the sentencing exercise.
32It must be borne in mind that at the age of 20, and only 19 at the time of your offending, you fall to be sentenced as a young offender. The authorities are clear that the facilitation of your rehabilitation must be an important sentencing factor in these circumstances.[6] You come before the Court with an absence of prior criminality, you have appropriately recognised the gravity of your offending, and it seems you are appropriately remorseful. In those circumstances, in accordance with well-established principle, your rehabilitation remains a significant sentencing factor in the formulation of an appropriate penalty in your case.
[6] R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Azzopardi v R; Baltatzis v R; Gabriel v R (2011) 35 VR 43.
33As conceded by the prosecution, you pleaded guilty at an early stage in proceedings, warranting a sentencing discount. On 16 August 2021, you offered to plead guilty to the charges, on the basis upon which this matter subsequently settled. The matter resolved without the need for a contested committal. Your matter resolved to a plea of guilty in the context of the COVID‑19 pandemic and its unprecedented challenges to the administration of justice, with this Court experiencing significant backlogs. In those circumstances, a significant sentencing discount is warranted in accordance with the principles articulated in the case of Worboyes v R.[7] As the Court in Worboyes stated, given that the system of criminal justice in this State is in crisis due to the unacceptable delays, the courts must encourage those who are guilty to plead guilty, and such encouragement must come from an ‘actual and palpable’ amelioration of sentence.[8]
[7][2021] VSCA 169.
[8] Ibid at [35].
34As I have indicated, I am satisfied that you are remorseful for your conduct. Indeed, such sentiments were essentially articulated by psychologist, Jeffrey Cummins, in his report to which I have already referred. Furthermore, during the sentencing conversation as part of the Koori Court plea hearing procedure on 23 November 2021 at Shepparton, you meaningfully contributed to that conversation, repeatedly expressing, in my view, genuine contrition for your offending behaviour, and articulating your concern for Mr Ewart’s welfare. Accordingly, a further sentencing discount is warranted due to your remorse.
35Turning to the Koori Court Sentencing Conversation more generally, on 23 November 2021 you participated in a Sentencing Conversation, in the presence of Aboriginal Elders, as part of the Koori Court plea hearing procedure. As is often the case, that Sentencing Conversation was substantial, direct and at times confronting for you. This was so, particularly given the nature and severity of your offending, and the fact that footage of your assault was played immediately before the Sentencing Conversation. I formed the view that during the Sentencing Conversation, you were conscientiously participating and taking responsibility for your actions.
36Part of the Sentencing Conversation to which I have referred involves a shaming aspect, which, in my view, you genuinely embraced. I have little doubt that this would have been particularly confronting for you, and your willingness to expose yourself in this way is to your credit. Furthermore, your mother and girlfriend also contributed to the discussion, no doubt reinforcing to you the gravity of your conduct, together with your predicament. As acknowledged in recent authority,[9] meaningful engagement in the Koori Court Sentencing Conversation may operate as a mitigating circumstance. You faced the shaming that is an integral part of those proceedings and you were prepared to be accountable for your offending. Participation in the process of a Koori Court is more burdensome than appearing at a traditional plea hearing, and participation therefore may of itself be rehabilitative.
[9]DPP v Heyfron [2019] VSCA 130 at [66] – [69].
37Your participation in the Koori Court Sentencing Conversation therefore accentuates your prospects for rehabilitation. As I have stated, you are a young man, with an absence of prior criminality, and a supportive home environment. You have exhibited what can be described as prosocial indicia, sporting activities and employment, together with the maintenance of an appropriate relationship. All of these matters bode well for your prospects of rehabilitation, noting the recommendations of Mr Cummins with regard to specialist interventions. The prosecution in this case submitted that you had meaningful prospects of rehabilitation provided you can control your alcohol consumption. I agree.
38Since being granted bail on 25 March 2021, with stringent conditions, you have complied with your bail regime, also a matter standing to your credit. In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I have also taken into consideration the difficulties associated with a sentence of imprisonment or detention, given the COVID‑19 pandemic. As is now well-known, the custodial setting has been significantly impacted by the pandemic. To varying degrees, given the unpredictable nature of the pandemic, there have been significant restrictions in the custodial and detention setting with regard to lockdowns, visits, access to employment programs, services and therapies, and quarantining and isolation. In addition, all those in this environment have had to live with the ongoing stress and anxiety associated with the risks should COVID‑19 enter the custodial environment with its compromised demographic. Clearly, COVID‑19 has entered this environment. Accordingly, the hardships associated with COVID‑19 in this environment must, in my view, be taken into consideration in the imposition of an appropriate sentence in your case. To put it bluntly, the consequences of COVID‑19 will make any sentence involving your confinement in a custodial or detention setting more arduous.
39Your counsel submitted that due to all of these factors, the relevant sentencing purposes can adequately be served in your case through the imposition of a Community Correction Order. An extended pre-sentence assessment report from Shepparton Community Correctional Services dated 20 January 2022 found you suitable for a Community Correction Order, with various recommended conditions including unpaid community work and treatment, and rehabilitation with regards to alcohol and anger management. According to your counsel, the imposition of a Community Correction Order would accord with current sentencing practices, another factor to which I must have regard to in the formulation of an appropriate sentence in your case. Your counsel, in written submissions, referred to numerous sentencing decisions of the County Court to support the submission that a Community Correction Order would not create discord with regards to the issue of current sentencing practices. I have had regard to these decisions, which are persuasive only, in the consideration of an appropriate sentence in your case.
40In contrast, the prosecution submitted that having regard to all the circumstances and the applicable sentencing principles, a combination sentence of imprisonment and a Community Correction Order would be within range, as would a period of detention in a Youth Justice Centre. On the issue of current sentencing practices, the prosecution referred me to the recent decision of his Honour Chief Judge Kidd of this Court in DPP v Andrews,[10] together with various other sentences of the Victorian Court of Appeal in a subsequent submissions document. Whilst the Court of Appeal decisions in particular, in my view, are disparate from your case factually, there are some similarities with the decision of Andrews, which resulted in a sentence of detention in a Youth Justice Centre, notwithstanding that it proceeded as a Judge Alone Trial. In any event, I have carefully considered those authorities on the issue of current sentencing practices.
[10][2021] VCC 1125.
41In addition to ordering an assessment for the purposes of your suitability for a Community Correction Order, I ordered that you be assessed for the purposes of your suitability for a Youth Justice Centre Order, and a report dated 28 January 2022 from Aboriginal intensive support practitioner, Ricky Christian, who I note is on the videolink for today's sentencing hearing, was subsequently provided. You were found suitable for a Youth Justice Centre Order based upon your prospects of rehabilitation.
Sentence to be Imposed
42Alcohol fuelled violence by young males, often on the street and in view of others, is understandably a cause for considerable public concern. The Victorian Court of Appeal has referred to random street violence as being a scourge on our society.[11] Any penalty imposed must, in my view, serve to denounce such abhorrent conduct, send a clear message to the community that this conduct is completely unacceptable, and deter others from undertaking similar conduct. General deterrence, accordingly, is a significant sentencing purpose in this case. Given your absence of prior criminality and your attitude with regards to your offending, in my view, specific deterrence is not a prominent purpose in your case.
[11] DPP v Russell (2014) 44 VR 471 at [1].
43Mr Velos, I can assure you that the decision to impose a custodial term upon a young person with no prior convictions and otherwise favourable prospects of rehabilitation is not one made lightly. However, in my view, having carefully considered all of the applicable factors, principles and purposes in your case, I have come to the decision that such a penalty is required in order to adequately express the Court’s denunciation of such grave offending, and to meet the sentencing considerations of just punishment and general deterrence. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991, in my view, a sentence involving your confinement is justified, and in circumstances where there are reasonable prospects for your rehabilitation, it is my intention to make a Youth Justice Centre Order in your case. Whilst, in my view, the offending covered by the three charges on the indictment involves distinct criminality, albeit part of one overall incident, in accordance with s33 of the Sentencing Act 1991, the sentences that I am about to impose will be concurrent.
44On Charge 1 on the indictment, common law assault, you are convicted and ordered to be detained in a Youth Justice Centre for two months.
45On Charge 2 on the indictment, recklessly causing serious injury, you are convicted and ordered to be detained in a Youth Justice Centre for 15 months.
46On Charge 3 on the indictment, affray, you are convicted and ordered to be detained in a Youth Justice Centre for four months.
47That makes a total effective sentence of 15 months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre. There is no pre-sentence detention in this matter. Your sentence commences immediately.
48I will make the Disposal Order sought by the Prosecution, the making of this Order not being opposed by you.
49Finally, pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty by a jury at trial, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of two years and four months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre.
50Mr Waugh, any issues or ambiguities, or have I missed anything with regards to the sentence?
51MR WAUGH: Nothing from me, Your Honour.
52HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Ms Malobabic, anything from the prosecution with regards to the sentence?
53MS MALOBABIC: No, Your Honour. Everything is clear.
54HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
55MS MALOBABIC: As Your Honour pleases.
56HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Velos can be removed.
57MR WAUGH: Your Honour, just before Mr Velos is removed, may I approach the dock?
58HIS HONOUR: Yes, of course.
59MR WAUGH: Thank you, Your Honour.
60HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Swindon. Adjourn the court please.
- - -
0
6
0