Director of Public Prosecutions v Wade

[2018] VCC 1779

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT WARRNAMBOOL
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 17-02051

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

TROY WADE

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Warrnambool
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 November 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Wade
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VCC 1779

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr G. Hevey
For the Accused	Mr C. Baker

HIS HONOUR: 

1Troy Wade, you and the victim formed a relationship in September of 2013.  Unfortunately the relationship turned violent, requiring the victim to call the police from time to time.  Intervention orders were put in place.

2As it turned out, there were intervention orders in place at the time of your offending in February and March of 2017.  The intervention orders were aimed at preventing you from committing family violence; you comprehensively breached those court orders by your dreadful conduct which I will now outline.

3I will summarise the prosecution opening which was tendered on the plea. 
I will not quote all the degrading things that you said and did to the victim.  However, I have considered all that was set out in the prosecution opening.

4On 30 November 2016, you were before the Hamilton Magistrates' Court for assault and contravention of a Family Violence Safety Notice.  You were placed on a community corrections order with conditions including undertaking a men's behaviour change program.  You had yet to commence that program when you committed the serious crimes that are before me now.  The intervention order was reimposed. 

5By February 2017, you had developed an unbalanced paranoid view that the victim was seeing another man and in fact was hiding a man in the house. 
You searched the house for a man and also for a phone that you claimed the victim was hiding.  You then searched the victim herself, demanding she remove her clothing down to her underwear so that you could see she was not hiding a phone.  She begged to be allowed to put her clothing back on but you would not allow it.

6She went to bed but you took away the doona and the pillow.  Despite this, she drifted off to sleep before feeling something scraping on her foot.  She opened her eyes and saw that you were scraping her foot with a kitchen carving knife.  She shouted at you, asking what you were doing.  You responded with
"I'm going to fucking stab you, you whore".

7Then in what became part of the pattern in your disturbed behaviour, you calmed down and the victim was able to get back to sleep.  But again you woke her as she felt scraping her hand and she could see that you had a knife. 
You put the knife down and put both hands around her neck starting to choke her.  She was unable to breath or scream loudly. 

8You then suddenly let go and she felt to the floor.  She tried to leave the house but you grabbed her by her hair, pushing her onto the bed telling her to go to sleep.  All this conduct was charged as a single offence of common assault.

9On 6 March 2017, the victim left her work and picked you up from another house in Hamilton.  In the car, you began asking question as to whether she was involved with another man at her work.  Once she got home, you accused her of having sex with men.

10At one point, you grabbed her skirt, pulling it down and then you took her underwear off her despite her protesting.  You then demanded she remove her tampon as you wanted to physically ascertain if she had engaged in sex. 
The victim was naked from the waist down and you continued to accuse her of having sex with someone else.  As you did this, you went towards her and touched her on the vagina with your finger saying you wanted to see if she had had sex. 

11She began to cry and pushed your hand away as she wanted to replace her tampon and get dressed but you would not allow it.  She was forced to remain this humiliating state for over an hour.  This conduct was charged as a sexual assault and is part of your persistent breach of the intervention order imposed on 30 November 2016.

12The following day, shortly after the victim woke, you continued with your paranoid obsession about whether she had been with another man.  You threw half a bottle of liquid at her and threatened to bash her.  You then ran at her and kicked her, connecting with her forearms which were covering her face.  Your intent was clear and cowardly.  This was also charged as a common assault.

13She told you she was going to call the police and that she wanted you out of the house.  You responded by grabbing her hair and pushing her to the floor, pushing her head into the floorboards.  You then let her go but as she went towards the kitchen, you grabbed a knife from the knife block threatening to cut her genitalia so no one else could have sex with her.  She was able to run down the door towards the milk-bar not far away where she bought a ticket for a bus to Hamilton. 

14She was waiting for the bus when you found her at the bus stop, coming up to her telling her to get home or you would bash her head in saying "I don't care who sees me.  I'll bash you here".  When she refused to go home with you because she was frightened, you slapped her across the top of her head.  Eventually she did walk home.  This hitting was also charged as a common assault.

15Later on that afternoon, you made the victim watch a pornographic video on your phone falsely claiming it was her on the video.  The victim tried to convince you that it was not her to no avail.  You then searched for other pornographic videos for the same purpose of asserting that it was her in the videos. 
You threw your mobile phone across the room yelling at her that you have got "the evidence" and that you should bash her. 

16You then grabbed her by the hair and hit her hard across the head, ear and jaw areas.  She was forced back onto the couch.  Your attack continued with you yelling at her and forcing her to look at pornographic images which, in your paranoid state, you claimed were of her.

17The victim was afraid her jaw may have been broken and wanted to go to the hospital but you would not allow it as you believed the staff would call the police.  You then got a knife and began to cut across her neck in scraping motions.  While this did not cut through the skin, there was blood in some places; it was all part of your terrifying and controlling conduct. 

18The victim said that she would go with a friend to the hospital and tell the hospital that the injuries came from a fall from a horse.  She then went to her friend's house to get a lift to the hospital.  At the hospital, the x-rays and the
CT scans fortunately revealed no fractures to the jaw but rather deep tissue damage.  She was given pain relief via intravenous drip.  This was charged as recklessly causing injury.

19The whole conduct on 7 March was part of the persistent breach of the intervention order.  The next night, now 8 March 2017, you were maintaining your paranoid belief that the victim was involved in pornography.

20She went to sleep in a different room to you.  You came in, woke her demanding that she say where she had hidden a phone.  Again, you took the blanket and pillow from her and demanded she take all her clothes off.  You told her she had to remain that way and again you accused her of infidelity. 

21After some time, you allowed her to put on her clothes.  However after a short while, you went and got a roll of duct tape, some rope and a hammer.  You tied her wrists in front of her with the duct tape and tried to put some tape on her mouth and around her head, all the while she was begging for you to stop.

22You then demanded that she get on the ground and tell you who she was having an affair with.  She replied "There is no one.  You have put me through this hell for days for nothing".  You replied "It's not for nothing you fucking slut". 
You then picked up the hammer and you told her that she must say who she was having an affair or you were going to bash her skull in.

23After the complainant begged you to stop and not to kill her, you put the hammer down.  You told her to calm down.  In a bizarre next step, you then went and got your tattoo gun, came back to the lounge room and put a line through the victim's name that you had previously tattooed on your foot.  You were charged with false imprisonment, and all the Family Violence conduct was charged as part of the persistent breach of the intervention order. 

24The events of the next day, 9 March 2017, were not the subject of any charges but led to your arrest.  The victim had a job interview in Hamilton and you drove the victim to the interview.  On the way home, you asked her if she wanted to die today.  You then started driving on the wrong side of the road as cars were coming towards you.  The victim had to grab the steering wheel to bring the car onto the correct lane.

25You said to her that you were going to have a head on and every time a car came towards your car, you would veer on to the other side of the road. 
The victim was petrified and begged you to stop and slow down. 

26Later that day, you again accused her of having sex with other men and she told you to shut up as she was tired of hearing this nonsense.  You grabbed her by the hair and told her that it was her fault because she was a slut. 
She ran inside, grabbed her phone and called 000.  You then yelled at her to hang up and not to be stupid and that you loved her.  The victim waited outside for the police.  You came outside and grabbed her phone.

27Thankfully, she had enough for an opportunity to call the police and they arrived finding the victim in the house crying.  You were arrested in your subsequent interview, you denied the allegations.

28I just pause here for a moment.  Is there any concern about the factual account?

29MR HEVEY  There is one, Your Honour, and it best be cleared up if it can at the moment?  The fourth instance Your Honour referred to where the knife was placed across the neck and do not cut but caused bleeding?  That was actually across the accused's neck.

30HIS HONOUR:  I follow.

31MR HEVEY:  Yes, rather than the complainant's neck.  And in the complainant's statement, Your Honour, at p.6 she refers to that as "He was saying 'I love you, this is what you've made me do.  It's your fault'". 

32HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I follow.  I apologise, Mr Hevey.

33MR HEVEY:  Thank you.

34HIS HONOUR:  Mr Baker and Mr Wade.  So when you got the knife, you cut it across your own neck.  It carries with it some elements of controlling behaviour nonetheless but it is not on her throat or neck.

35In assessing the gravity of your offending, I need to refer to how the highest court in this state and in other states, and the highest court in Australia are now speaking of the scourge of family violence.

36Firstly, in 2001, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal said the following in R v Edigarov, paragraph 40 where Chief Justice Wood said the following; that is Chief Justice Wood at common law:

"Violent attacks in domestic settings must be treated with real seriousness.  Regrettably, that form of conduct involves aggression by men who are physically stronger than their victims and who are often in a position economically, or otherwise, to enforce their silence and their acceptance of such conduct.  In truth such conduct is brutal, cowardly and inexcusable, and the Courts have a duty to ensure that it is adequately punished, and that sentences are handed out which have a strong element of personal and general deterrence."

37Later, in 2006 in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, in the matter of R v Hamid, at paragraph 77 the following was said:

"An adequate account of domestic violence should recognise that it typically involves the exercise of power and control over the victim, is commonly recurrent and may escalate over time, may affect a number of people beyond the primary target and that it contributes to the subordination of women; domestic violence typically involves the violation of trust by someone with whom the victim shares, or has shared, an intimate relationship; the offender may no longer need to resort to violence in order to instil fear and control"

38In 2007, in the Court of Appeal of Victoria, Justice, Justice Dodds-Streeton observed the following in the matter of DPP v Smeaton. 

"Violence, and in particular violence by men against women as a means of control in current relationships or in relationships which have ended, is a prevalent and even critical social evil.  As in the present case, the perpetrators not uncommonly expresses remorse immediately after a violent assault".

39Her Honour went on:

"That sufficiently express the deep abhorrence excited by a violent and brutal physical assault by an adult male on a slight young woman, which is in no degree abated by the fact of a prior relationship between the victim and the perpetrator."

40In Victoria in 2014, the Court of Appeal spoke in like terms in Pasinis v The Queen.  In that matter, the court said:

"Historically perpetrators of family violence were rarely prosecuted.  Even when offenders were convicted of such offences, they often received lenient sentences.  Fortunately the criminal law now gives greater recognition to the devastating effects of family violence.  It has also been recognised that women who are killed by their husband, boyfriends or de facto partners have frequently been assaulted by them many times previously.  This makes both specific and general deterrence very important factors in sentencing men who assault their partner.

41In 2013, the High Court in Munda v Western Australia recognised the role of courts in dealing with domestic violence and gave appellant authority or approval to significant weight being attached to specific and general deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community.

42The High Court again took that approach in the important sentencing decision of The Queen v Kilic in 2016.  That was a case involving in a single incident of very serious violence against a previous partner.  That case analysed the role of current sentencing practicing in the sentencing task of a judge in Victoria.  The court said at paragraph 21 the following:

"The requirement of currency recognises that sentencing practices for a particular offence or type of offence may change over time reflecting changes in community attitudes to some forms of offending.  For example, current sentencing practices with respect to sexual offences may be seen to depart from past practices by reason, inter alia, of changes in understanding of the long-term harm done to the victim.  So, too, may current sentencing practices for offences involving domestic violence depart from past sentencing practices for this category of offence because of changes in societal attitudes to domestic relations".

43Finally, a comprehensive analysis of the topic was undertaken by the Victorian Court of Appeal in late 2017 in Kalala v R [2017] VSCA 223.  This was a case of the incitement to murder of a domestic partner as punishment for her perceived infidelity.  I must quote from this important decision concerning domestic violence at some length.  Commencing at paragraph 55, the court said:

"On the plea, the prosecutor had referred to the community’s abhorrence of the applicant’s motive, which was to punish his spouse for perceived infidelity.  Senior counsel submitted on the plea that the particular sentencing considerations relating to family violence were enlivened so that general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment should be given even greater primacy. The Chief Justice [who was the sentencing judge] emphasised the importance of general deterrence and denunciation in her sentencing remarks".

"It is well recognised that the prevalence of a particular type of crime may be a relevant sentencing consideration.  In 2016 the Royal Commission into Family Violence reported that, although it was not clear whether the incidences of family violence was increasing, there had been a marked increase in the reporting of it.  This is reflected in family violence incidence data for Victoria."

44The court in Kalala went on:

"The Crime Statistics Agency reports that, between January 2012 and December 2016, Victoria Police identified 340,926 ‘family incident related’ offences.  In 2016, such offences represented 16.6 per cent of offences, an increase from 11 per cent in 2012. 

"The trial courts of this State (that is, referring to the County Court and the Supreme Court as a trial court for murder) are imposing sentences for family violence offences with increasing frequency.  This Court has repeatedly emphasised the need to condemn family violence, in line with community expectations.  In Filiz v The Queen, the Court acknowledged the ‘shameful truth that family violence is a leading cause of illness, disability and death among Victorian women aged between 15 and 44.'"

45The court went on at paragraph 62, after quoting from Pasinis the matter that I have already referred to.  At paragraph 62, the court said:

"Unsurprisingly, counsel for the applicant did not suggest that their client’s moral culpability for his deliberate criminal conduct was in any way reduced by the perception of infidelity which actuated the offence.  In our view, the position is quite to the contrary.  The applicant’s motivation — that is, to have her killed as punishment for perceived infidelity — is expressive of the very worst of male attitudes towards women.  It follows that this offending must be viewed as involving moral culpability at the highest level.  Sentencing law has long recognised the prevalence of violence by men against women in (or after) domestic relationships, and the importance of general deterrence in such circumstances."

46Turning from those matters of general application to this case, any assessment of the gravity of what you did must also consider the impact on the victim. 

47In her victim impact statement, the victim wrote "My life has completely changed.  I am not the person I used to be any more.  I don't enjoy life any more.  I am constantly on guard and jumping at the slightest noise or hearing a male voice.  I have depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder from the trauma I suffered.  I have sleeping difficulties and I can't work anymore because my anxiety is so bad".

48She refers to her job as something she really enjoyed.  She goes on:  "I thought about suicide many times.  I feel like I am trapped inside my head, reliving the trauma every day.  I am scared every day, every night and it never goes away.  I feel useless.  He broke my spirit, he has taken everything from me".

49Your offending was violent, at times very violent.  It involved using a knife, a hammer, and it escalated and it escalated the victim's fear.  It was conduct direct at control of the victim by humiliation and by the engendering of fear.  There was sexual insults and violations.  It was protracted and unpredictable, adding to her sense of fear.  It was in her house where she was entitled to feel safe.  But it also was in public streets where she went trying to escape.

50It was cowardly, it was a breach of trust.  You professed to love her and she was entitled to a relationship of respect, equality and dignity.  You tried to dominate by masculine aggression.  These offences of assault and sexual assault are plainly serious examples of these crimes.  The false imprisonment is also concerning although, thankfully, brief.

51Your comprehensive breach of the intervention order, a court order put in place to protect the victim, is particularly concerning.  The community is troubled that the tools used to protect women and control men are so often ignored.  The deterrence and protective aspects of these orders must be reinforced by stern punishment for those who persistently breach the orders and commit violence. 

52I will defer consideration of your moral culpability until I have discussed your troubled mental health. 

53As to your personal circumstances, you are now 30.  You were 29 at the time of your offending.  Your parents separated when you were young.  You lived first with your mother and then with your father who stands by you still.  Your schooling was difficult due to your dyslexia, however you are literate. 

54You attended schools in Melbourne and in the Western District.  You have had a number of labouring jobs over the years.  As noted, you met the victim in 2013 and you moved between South Australia and Victoria with her. 

55Your mental health is problematic.  In his report, the psychologist, Mr Jeffrey Cummins, wrote the following under the heading mental state examination:

"He did not present as being psychotic or schizophrenia, and he specifically did not present with paranoid schizophrenia.  He presented with a moderately elevated level or paranoia and provided a history which could be consistent with him suffering a paranoid personality disorder.  Significantly, however, he described himself as being a drifter and is often experiencing feelings and thoughts of paranoia which he was unable to explain.  In my opinion, he was reluctant to accept that his paranoid ideation and feelings could have been triggered, at least in part, as a result of a dependency on cannabis and the use of methamphetamine.  Simultaneously though, when I attempted to speak to him about the possibility that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or does suffer from paranoid personality disorder, he quite assertively shied away from these possibilities stating there was nothing wrong with his mental health and that he had never had any major mental health problems.  This was of dealing with his egodystonic information may well be confirmation that he has suffered from paranoia, including possibly paranoid schizophrenia and a paranoid personality disorder".

"He presented as being slightly below average intelligence.  He did not present as having an obvious acquired brain injury.  He had difficulty forming good rapport in the interview situation and at times there was an obvious lack of reciprocity and communication skills, and particularly at times when he spoke with at least mildly elevated level of paranoia.  He presented as being mildly anxious and mildly depressed".

56He went on, under 'Opinions and conclusions':

"He stated that he had a lengthy history of being diagnosed with and treated for paranoid schizophrenia.  He also said he had been diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder.  In my opinion, he was quite a vague historian and on his own admission he has memory problems though I did not assess him as having an obvious acquired brain injury.  He spoke in a manner confirming he was very reluctant to accept that he has any diagnosable mental health problem.  Nonetheless, his comments and presentation interview indicate that at times he displayed an elevated level of paranoia and a review of his medical history indicates he has often been treated with mood stabilising medication.  He thought at the time of his arrested he was medicated on a mood stabiliser or anti-psychotic, Abilify although later in the interview, he mentioned about having another anti-psychotic medication, Seroquel".

57Mr Cummins went on:

"In terms of diagnosis, he provide sufficient information to indicate that at times in his life and perhaps even at the time of the offending, he was dependant on cannabis, methamphetamine and alcohol.  The various medical records contained frequent references to him being diagnosed with a paranoid personality disorder and as having - and as reporting he was being treated for paranoid schizophrenia.  I appreciate diagnostic issues are often confounded when there is a history of chronic drug use as has been the situation for Mr Wade".

58The victim was concerned about your paranoia and your personality disorder at the time.  She wanted you to get back on medication; plainly, you were not thinking clearly when you relentlessly accused your victim of infidelity and of being on pornographic videos.  It was not argued that your moral culpability should be seen as lower because of an impaired mental functioning.  That said, I do not ignore that you have had mental instability and fragility, especially it seems when you are using ice.

59Any drug induced paranoid or paranoid personality disorder does not operate to lower moral culpability.  Your counsel in his very helpful written and oral submissions did not argue that any impaired mental functioning reduced your moral culpability.  Thus, in my view, your moral culpability for these offences was high.

60You have relevant and concerning prior convictions for violence and contravention of a intervention orders.  In April 2012, you were sentenced by the County Court of Victoria to two years and three months with a non-parole period of eight months for an aggravated burglary and for intentionally causing injury.

61In June of that same year, 2012, the magistrate imposed a one month sentence for threats to inflict serious injury and assault.  That one month sentence was to run concurrent with the sentence that you were then undergoing imposed by the County Court just two months before.

62As referred to, on 30 November 2016, a magistrate imposed a community corrections order for the unlawful assault and breach of an intervention order, all crimes that related to the same victim.  Thus, at the time of this offending you were the subject of a community corrections order.  Thus, specific deterrence and protection of the community are important sentencing considerations.

63Your plea of guilty means that your sentence will be less than it otherwise would have been had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty.  However, there is no other evidence of remorse and this usually important mitigatory factor was not relied upon.

64You have been on remand for a lengthy period of time.  You are well-settled and you are doing well enough and you have done all you can on remand, though I note that you are not on medication.  Your insight into your fragile mental health is limited. 

65I do not overlook the important of your rehabilitation but I am guarded as to your prospects.  It will be a matter for you to put drugs behind you permanently and take up help that will be available with your mental health though I recognise that both matters are likely to present difficulties for you.

66The important sentencing purposes have been referred to in the appellate decisions that I have quoted from.  However, so it is clear, I must give practical expression to denunciation of your violent and cruel behaviour.  Our community will not tolerate such conduct and those who act as you did will face lengthy terms of imprisonment.

67The sentence that I impose must act as a deterrent to other men who resort to cowardly violence and controlling behaviour or who think that intervention orders upon them mean nothing.  You personally need to be deterred, as I have referred to.  The community, especially women, need to be protected from you by the incapacitation brought about by imprisonment.  The establishment of conditions to facilitate your rehabilitation will be by allowing for potential parole.  Whether you are granted parole and when is for others.  Thus my sentence is one set mindful that you may do every day of your head sentence.

68The offending was in discrete episodes but connected to the way that you were thinking about the victim.  There will be some cumulation but I have ensured the proper application of totality.  Your sentence will be what I consider is just and appropriate and proportionate to your offending no more and no less. 
I have revisited the sentences and the orders for cumulation to ensure that I have not doubly punished you for the assaults that are the particulars of the persistent breach of the intervention order.

69The different offences have been carefully considered to see if the sentence meets the totality of the offending.  In that regard, I am aided by what was said by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal just last week in respect of like matters in dealing with a Crown application that a sentence was manifestly inadequate, a Crown appeal, in the case of R v JD (2018) NSWCCA 2334.  The Crown argued that the orders for concurrency were too lenient.

70At paragraph 99, under the heading "Totality", the court said:

"The Crown submitted that domestic violence offences often involved an offender committing multiple offences against the same victim.  In such circumstances, the principle of totality requires the court to impose a sentence which appropriately reflected the entirety of the offending conduct.  The Crown submitted that in applying the totality principle, the question for the court is whether the sentence for one offence can comprehend and reflect the criminality for the other offences.  The Crown submitted that where the offences were discrete and independent criminal acts, it was more likely that the sentence for one offence would not comprehend the criminality of the others and that there would be a need for a degree of accumulation between the various sentences.  The Crown further noted that this Court has said repeatedly that to ensure public confidence in the administration of justice, it is necessary to impose sentences 'which do not suggest that multiple offences will be punished in the same way as one or two offences'"

71At paragraph 101, the court said:

"I agree with those statements of principle by the Crown on the issue of totality. Ultimately, the question is whether the final aggregation of the sentence appropriate for each offence and whether it results in a sentence which reflects a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved (Postiglione v R [1997] HCA 26; 189 CLR 295). Applying that principle, I have concluded that when carrying out the notional accumulation of the indicative sentences, his Honour’s sentence discretion miscarried in that the overall result reflected in the aggregate sentence for the offences against “R”, does not reflect a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved."

72Doing the best I can in respect of the offences, I impose the following sentences.  Can you please stand, Mr Wade?

73Charge 1, common assault.  You are sentenced to 7 months' imprisonment.

74Charge 2, the sexual assault, you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

75Charge 3, the persistent breach of the intervention order, you are sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment.

76Charge 4, the common assault, you are sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.

77Charge 5, of common assault, 12 months' imprisonment.

78Charge 6, the recklessly causing injury, you are sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment.

79Charge 7, the false imprisonment, you were sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment. 

80Charge 2, the sexual assault is the base sentence.  I order that two months of Charge 1, 12 months of Charge 4, two months of Charge 4, three months of Charge 5, six months of Charge 6 and eight months of Charge 7 be cumulative upon each other and upon the base sentence of two years that I imposed on Charge 2.

81That gives a total effective sentence of 56 months or four years and eight months and I fix a minimum non-parole period of three years and three months.

82What is the PSD to this point?

83MR BAKER:  There is 592 days on the last occasion, Your Honour?

84HIS HONOUR:  Well, what is it now?

85MR BAKER:  592 days because Your Honour sentenced him in relation to the three months of the appeal.

86HIS HONOUR:  You are very kind, thank you.  You have been on remand or what can be attributed to remand 592 days.  That figure having been reckoned, I declare that 592 days of the sentence that I have just imposed is part of the sentence that I have just imposed. 

87I will ensure that that declaration is entered in the records of the court so the prison authorities are left in no doubt.  You have done 592 days of the sentence that I have just imposed. 

88There are, as I understand it, a forfeiture order in relation to hammers and ropes and that. 

89MR HEVEY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

90HIS HONOUR:  And that will be - the application will be granted.  Is there any other orders?

91MR HEVEY:  No, thank you, Your Honour.

92HIS HONOUR:  Just wait a minute.  Mathematics has escaped me here.  Can you assist?  My staff tell me it is four years and nine months.  I apologise.  What do you say?

93MR BAKER:  By those numbers, four years and nine months, Your Honour.

94HIS HONOUR:  Yes, that is what I am - the numbers are what I have meant to say, not the total which I have made mistake about.  Four years and nine months.  No other orders?

95MR HEVEY:  No.  Thank you, Your Honour.

96HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  I will sign the order.  You can be seated, Mr Wade.

97MR BAKER:  Thank you.  Just so that I can fully explain to Mr Wade, I was just after a declaration whether that was cumulative or concurrent in relation to the sentence that you handed down last week?

98HIS HONOUR:  He is undergoing a sentence?  It is concurrent with the sentence he is currently undergoing.  There is no need for any further addition, that it that now but it is concurrent with what he is currently undergoing.

99MR BAKER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

100HIS HONOUR:  If there is nothing further, Mr Hevey?

101MR HEVEY:  No, thank you, sir.

102HIS HONOUR:  Just bear with us?  Bear with me, I have got another page here that I have not turned over.  The 6AAA declaration is seven years with a minimum of five.  Had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty, I would have imposed a total sentence of seven years and a minimum of five.

103Is there anything else required?

104MR HEVEY:  No, thank you, sir.

105HIS HONOUR:  Thank you, Mr Wade can be taken back to the cells.  Mr Baker, thank you very much for your assistance in this and other matters. 

‑ ‑ ‑