Director of Public Prosecutions v White

[2019] VCC 1231

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

AT GEELONG
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 17-01720

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MARK WHITE

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	26&30 July 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 August 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v White
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 1231

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

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

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms L. Skoblar	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr G. Casement	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

1Mark White, you have pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered Category E long arm.  The unregistered firearm was in fact an unbranded Thureon assault rifle which is manufactured in the United States.  This weapon cannot be legally imported into Australia.

2The only known illegal importation of these types of weapons into Australia was by a Paul Munro.  As part of his illegal importation, he had the Thureon brand logo removed from some of the weapons.  Mr Munro was sentenced by another County Court judge for six offences involving of importation of firearms. 
The original sentence was substantially increased by the Court of Appeal upon a successful appeal brought by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

3During the course of your plea to the possession of an unregistered firearm, your counsel, Mr Casement, indicated that you had got the weapon from
Mr Paul Munro.  So much is clear from all the evidence.

4I say this because, in the weeks leading up to your arrest, police were investigating the firearms activities of Munro.  This involved intercepting and listening to his telephone calls, keeping him under surveillance, and having a covert police operative seek out for Munro firearms such as the Thureon assault rifles.

5During these investigations, the police discovered Munro was speaking to you about firearms that you had, enquiring of you if he could, in effect, borrow the firearm from you to show to the police covert operative as part of Munro's endeavour to secure an agreement from the covert operative to buy weapons that Munro was in the process of illegally importing from the United States of America.

6On 18 August 2016, Munro spoke to you about him taking your unregistered assault rifle and showing it to the potential purchaser, and returning it back to you.  Ultimately, you agreed to the plan.  There were other conversations over the next 12 days or so, leading to Munro coming to your firearms business which operated from your family home in Whittington outside Geelong.

7Munro secured from you and then took part of the gun to an arranged meeting with the covert operative.  You showed the covert operative the weapon in order to get a deposit.  Munro was then arrested.  Shortly after, you too were arrested.

8The period of time alleged in the charge of possession of this unregistered Category E long arm is from 18 August 2016 to 30 August 2016.

9It is important to state from the outset that you are no longer charged and thus do not fall to be sentenced for the much more serious charges for which Munro was sentenced.  Your offence is being in possession of an unregistered Category E firearm.  The emphasis is upon the fact that the firearm in your possession was unregistered.

10The criminality of being in possession of the unregistered firearms is because you were, at the time, the holder of a Category 1 firearm dealer's license. 
This license allowed you to possess Category E long arms.  What also has to be understood is that from all the material, including extracts from the Victorian Police website, what flows from that is that that firearms dealers can be in possession of unregistered firearms so long as they proceed through the well-known processes of advising the firearms authorities within Victoria Police of the unregistered firearm and then seeking to have the firearm registered appropriately.

11There is no evidence that you endeavoured to have this unregistered firearm registered.  Had you done so, the police would have investigated due to the nature of the firearm. 

12Although your counsel made a broad submission that the summary of the evidence involving the police investigation into Munro was not relevant to my sentencing task, I am of the view that it is necessary to understand the context in which you had possession of the unregistered firearm to have some resort to the broad background facts.

13Understanding the context should not be seen as incautiously attributing to you the very different and much more grave criminality of Munro, who was dealt with for the Federal criminal offences of importation of firearms.

14With this to the forefront of my sentencing task, I nonetheless need to know that the firearm in question, the unbranded Thureon assault rifle, was a fully automatic gun able to operate as a machine gun and capable of firing a thousand rounds per minute.  That only has to be said for the seriousness of this weapons charge to be revealed.  A weapon of this kind creates intolerable risks to law and order and the safety of the public.

15When, after arresting Munro, the police came to your premises, the part of the firearm that was left with you was in fact lawfully stored.  However, it was not included on your firearms dealer's register.  It had a label on it which had the words or description that it was a Category D long arm.  You claimed that this label was a description of what you intended to do to the weapon, which was to convert it to a Category D long arm.

16As your long and to that point unblemished career in the firearms business revealed, including machining and building of weapons, there is no doubt that you had the skills and the wherewithal to do the conversion from a Category E to a Category D long arm.  The evidence from those involved in the firearms industry was to the effect that you were one of if not the most skilled gunsmith in Victoria.

17This topic, however, of the purpose of your possession of the firearm, is a very important sentencing consideration in firearms offences.  Plainly, if the purpose of your possession was self-evidently for other or indeed specific types of criminal activities, then, given the catastrophic destructive capacity of this weapon, the possession of the unregistered weapon would be particularly grave, deserving of considerable punishment.

18So much is spoken of by the Court of Appeal in the judgment in Munro, with reference to like important superior court decisions in the United Kingdom and in Canada.

19However, the point here to be understood about the importance of the purpose of the possession of an unregistered firearm is best captured by the often-cited decision of Berichon v The Queen; Houssein v The Queen [2013] VSCA 319, at paragraph 26. That case was, as many of the possession of firearms offences are, about a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered firearm, a crime which has a maximum term of 15 years compared to the maximum term of seven years in this case.

20Justice Redlich in Berichon said the following:

'The conduct of a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered firearm may be placed in one of two broad categories of seriousness.  Those categories have been discussed in R v Graham and Armistead v The Queen.  The first category of cases are those where the conclusion is not open that the possession of the firearm is associated with some ongoing criminal activity.  Sentences of a low order of imprisonment are usually appropriate unless the previous criminal history of the offender warrants a more substantial sentence, proportionate to the gravity of the offence.  The second category of cases are those where the evidence enables the conclusion that the possession is for the purpose of criminal activity or a specific criminal purpose, more severe sentences are then usually in order.'

21I propose to deal with this topic of the purpose of the possession of the unregistered firearm by you first in brief by summarising the submissions of your counsel and likewise, the prosecution.  I'll then elaborate on the evidence and the submissions of the parties and state my findings.

22In short, your counsel submitted that this was an example of criminal possession of an unregistered firearm in the first category as set out in Berichon.  Yours was not possession that was associated with ongoing criminal activity.

23The prosecution contended that your possession was for a criminal purpose, being to illegally sell this weapon on the black market, thus arming the criminal purchaser with a catastrophic deadly weapon.  As a fallback position, the prosecution contended that, at the least, your possession of the weapon at the point Munro asked to borrow it and show it to the would-be purchaser of other like weapons connected you to criminal activity.

24So to elaborate by reference first to your counsel's submissions, not because any onus falls on you, but so as to allow for better understanding of the topic and the evidence or lack of evidence with respect to the purpose of your possession.

25It was argued by your counsel that you, Mr White, had no knowledge of
Mr Munro's previous illegal trafficking or proposed trafficking in firearms of this sort.  The defence assertion on instructions was that you had an intention or purpose to convert the weapon that you had to a semi-automatic gun for legitimate sale to someone, being another dealer or an authorised shooter

26This was the suggested inference or conclusion that your counsel urged that I draw on the basis of the label, on the portion of the gun that was not given to Munro on 30 August 2016, together with the fact that you could achieve such a modification.

27Further, it was put by your counsel that the critical failure to register the firearm was, in truth, a lapse in your usual rigidly compliant approach to the laws and regulations and rules regarding firearms, a fact he pointed out that was acknowledged by the police regulators in 2013.  In this sense, your counsel relied on the evidence of an email describing or summarising the audit of your records by the firearms regulators in 2013 as being impeccable and unlike any other that had been seen.

28Also relied on to establish your usual strict compliance was the testimonials of those from the firearms industry that knew you and your practices well. 
I will cite some of these letters shortly.

29But I defer that for the moment because those letters also deal with the second or other aspect of your counsel's submissions; that is, your counsel pointed to the serious injury suffered by your wife in mid-2015 as the event that changed everything for you, including your usual solid capacity to make astute judgments about firearms matters, and your capacity to follow through with proper compliance.  I will elaborate on your wife's very unfortunate accident as it is generally relevant to the appropriate sentences.

30But for present purposes, or for the present issue as to why you had this unregistered firearm and why you had not attempted to get it registered or convert it, what is clear is that your wife's acquired brain injury that followed her fall in August 2015 meant that she needed a good deal of help from you, as did your family, because your wife was not able to continue in her significant role in raising your two young boys; in particular, your younger child who has special needs.

31What was submitted was that in this this unfortunate and highly stressful setting, you let your guard down.  You did not keep up with your obligations with the firearm register.  In dealing with Munro, you made a poor decision and lacked your usual judgment in the circumstances of your changed family circumstances.

32As mentioned, the letters from your friends and colleagues in the firearms industry touch on your usual high standards and the impact of your wife's accident.

33Mr Alexander Christik was one such letter writer.  He was, in the past, a police officer for over 30 years, reaching the level of Detective Senior Sergeant. 
He now operates his own wildlife and pest control business.  This business involves the use of firearms.  He's also a firearms consultant with considerable experience.  He writes the following:

'The accused is a highly-regarded professional gunsmith, skilled shooter and hunter who has significant experience in our industry.  The fact that he's been charged with an offence before the court has disqualified him from carrying out any further work from my company until these proceedings are concluded.'

34He goes on to say:

'I found the accused to be an honest, hard-working family man with a wife and two children.  He has endured considerable hardship in recent times due to health issues with his wife, Karen.  The circumstances leading to his appearance before the court are, in my view, out of character.'

35He also says that he has discussed this matter with you and is satisfied that you are acutely aware of the seriousness and the possible consequences of the current proceedings.  He considers that you expressed remorse for your action and great concern for the effects upon your family. 

36Mr Michael Huebner, a man who has represented Australia in shooting competitions and has reached the level of being in, as it is described, the Shooting Hall of Fame for his particular discipline, said that your skill and craft a builder of firearms was fundamental to his success as a competitive shooter.  He was very surprised to learn of the charges, as to him, it is wholly out of character.  He also points out that he knows that you have a young family, and given your wife's poor health, you are the one providing for them.

37The same sentiments were expressed by another competitive shooter,
Mr Douglas Lindsey.  Also, Mr Wayne Firth, a competitive shooter, wrote of your responsible and safe approach, in his opinion, to all firearms matters.

38Your counsel submitted that I could and should draw the inference that the label on the firearm was indicative of your intention and this, taken with your capacity to convert the firearm to a Category D, would lead to the ultimate conclusion that you had the firearm not for any criminal purpose, but ultimately, to regularise it if possible.

39Apart from what was set out in your counsel's submissions, there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, of your intention to convert the gun apart from the label.  In dealing with why nothing had been done, your counsel pointed to your change of family circumstances as being the basis of the broad answer as to why you had labelled it Category D but had not converted it.  And it was, it says, a lapse in your usual general approach to firearms.  It was a falling-off in compliance with your duties.  Your counsel also put weight on the fact that the weapon was properly stored.

40The prosecution submission was that given the value of the illegal firearm, and given how you had spoken to Munro about lending the gun to help him in his proposed sales, it was well open for me to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that your purpose was to sell the firearms yourself on the black market.

41In this regard, the prosecutors submitted that there was, in truth, no evidence about what was proposed with respect to the conversion of the firearm. 
And that was because, in the submission of the prosecutor, there was, in truth, no proposal for a conversion.  The prosecutor accepted you, as a gunsmith, could convert the weapon, but went on to say:

'It is not accepted that there is evidence supporting that that was his intention, nor, as a matter of logic, would it be likely a worthwhile thing to do, given that the firearm of which he was in possession was actually quite expensive, and to convert it into a semi-automatic weapon would mean its value would be reduced.'

42Also, the prosecutor pointed out the illegal nature of the firearm; that any attempt to convert and register it would have been thwarted by the authorities, who would have investigated before any registration was possible.  It seemed to me the prosecution submission was that you, with your knowledge of the firearms industry as a dealer, would have known that any conversion plan was, in fact, forlorn, making the submission that I should infer that you intended to alter and legitimise the gun a submission on very thin ground.

43The prosecution contended that, should I not find the possession was for a future illegal sale, that I should not draw the conclusion that positively on balance the possession was for this later conversion.  What I should find, in the submission of the prosecution, was the following:

'In terms of criminal purpose, in this case, there are two aspects; both whether or not it was for subsequent sale, but also, the purpose for which we know it was used, incontrovertibly, on the evidence - namely, being lent to Munro to knowingly facilitate the sale of yet more of these firearms in the community, and lent in the context where Mr White was himself afraid to have the person or persons who were to buy it know where he lived.'

44Further, it is said:

'It is submitted to be a serious aggravating feature of the offending, probably the most aggravating feature of the offending.'

45The prosecutor added in this context that as a license firearms dealer, this placed a higher premium of trust upon you; that is, you are entrusted by the regulars to perform a critical role in managing firearms so as to ensure the weapons are not available for use by criminals; thus, a lapse is a significant breach of responsibility deserving of condemnation and punishment.

46In this regard, what was asserted as a near-lapse becomes that much more serious because of the nature and dreadful capacity of this particular weapon.  This proposition that your possession of and the failure to register this weapon was a lapse, or you letting your guard down, must be seen in the light of the fact that you got the weapon from Munro and agreed to give it, or part of it, back to Munro so he could show it to others interested in purchasing weapons.  Also, you advised Munro to be careful in his dealings with the person who the gun was to be shown to.  If these were lapses or letting your guard down, then they were very substantial.

47In my view, this is more serious than a mere lapse.  This was not acting as a trusted firearms dealer or in fundamental ways.

48I do not find beyond reasonable doubt that you had an intention to sell the firearm yourself on the black market.  But I cannot find, on the balance, that you had an intention to convert the firearm to legitimise it.  What I find is that the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that you had lent the weapon to Munro to show a prospective black market purchaser of weapons.

49This, in the circumstances of your position as a firearms dealer, makes this a more serious example of the possession of an unregistered firearm than is described in the lower category in Berichon.

50This is not, in my view, an example of the possession connected with a specific or general criminal activity.  This case reveals the binary categories in Berichon are not always capable of capturing all the variety of circumstances that may arise. 

51Thus, in assessing the gravity of the crime, it is between the different categorisations put forward by your counsel and that put forward by the prosecutor as the primary position.  The deadly nature of the weapon cannot be overlooked, but I am mindful of not allowing that fact to overwhelm all other matters. 

52As to your moral culpability, it is higher and higher because of the fact that you were a respected firearms dealer well aware of the law and the nature of this dangerous weapon.  Also, your exchange with Munro are revealing of your high moral culpability with respect to possession of this unregistered firearm.

53As to your personal circumstances, I have already touched in brief on the most important matters, being the injury sustained by your wife in 2015.  However,
I need to go back further to set these matters in context.

54You are now 47.  You were raised in Geelong by hard-working parents who established a decent and loving household and family.  You moved from school to an apprenticeship as a fitter and turner.  You immediately showed a good work ethic, and something of that has remained with you to this day.  As part of your work as a fitter and turner, you trained as a gunsmith.

55You have particular skills and interest in the mechanics of firearms.  You established your firearms business in 2002.  You secured a Category 1 firearms dealer's license.  It goes without saying:  to obtain such a license, you need to satisfy rigid requirements as to your good character.

56Until this offending, you have maintained your good character.  You have no prior convictions, nor any since.  You are entitled to call on your good character in seeking a merciful sentence.  That said, given the circumstances of you committing a firearms offence while holding a license, which demands good character, the weight to be given to your lack of prior criminality is perhaps slightly less than might otherwise be the case.

57You met your wife in your early 20s, and you have been together since. 
You were married nearly 20 years ago.  She has provided some administrative assistance to your business, but by and large, she has worked in the banking industry.

58On 12 August 2015, your wife fainted at home, and when she fell, she struck her head, fracturing her skull and causing bleeds in her brain.  What followed was a significant period of physical recovery and rehabilitation.  Over the ensuing years, your wife's general capacity has been significantly compromised.  She has had loss of short-term memory, slower working memory, and slower information processing.

59The result of her fall is now a permanent acquired brain injury.  This has meant that she has not been able to continue with her career in the bank.  There are ongoing physical difficulties, such as headaches, neck pain, loss of smell and taste, and unsettling vertigo.  Her acquired brain injury has resulted in her becoming increasingly anxious and depressed.   She does not cope well with stress or indeed changes in routines.  According to her doctor, her treatment has now plateaued.  She requires, or needs, some help so as she can cope and manage daily life.

60Apart from the letters from Dr Galbraith to other clinicians, which were, in brief and in general terms, as to her condition and prognosis, there was no other evidence as of what were the impacts in a sense of what has to be done by you and what will likely occur if you are imprisoned.  You counsel submitted that the material allowed for the conclusion that you provided a 'structural and emotional support' to your wife, who has a difficulty. 

61From the Bar table, your counsel put that you have to do and continued to do checks during the day of monitoring how your wife is, especially with regard to your son with his special needs.  Mr Casement submitted that the material established by inference that without you, there was 'an inability for the family to function property as a family.'

62His submissions were that the material about your wife's ill health and needs, taken in combination with those of your youngest son, and the dire financial problems that you have, meant that the hardship to your family was at the necessary exceptional circumstances level.

63In respect to your son, I have pointed out that you have two young adolescent boys.  One has considerable problems, including anxiety, ADHD, and learning difficulties.  His treating paediatrician, the well-respected Dr Bernard Jenner, is of the view that the child has substantially reduced functional capacity in respect of communication, social interaction, learning, and self-managing. 
He describes the child as a special needs child who will require longstanding monitoring and attention at school and at home.  Much of this now falls overwhelmingly to you as a consequence of your wife's much lower capacity.

64Specialist medical and allied care required by your wife and your special needs child come at a cost.  You are the only breadwinner.  You have considerable loans; that is, the usual family home loan, but multiple business loans and loans for equipment relating to the concrete mixing business that you have established.  And as a consequence, you are, or your family are, in a perilous financial position.  It seems the real issue as to how your wife and child would cope with the changes involved, if, as a consequence of incarceration, you lost the family home under the weight of debt.

65As stated, it was submitted that this was one of those few cases where, by reason of exceptional circumstances, hardship to your family - that is, hardship to your wife and son - was such that it operated as a mitigatory factor in the sentencing process relating to you.

66Your counsel referred to the well-known decision of Markovic & Ors, which established the strict test for the use of hardship to family members as a mitigatory matter.  Those principles were set out in Markovic [2010] VSCA 105 - in particular, at paragraph 6, which set out principles summarised as follows:

'Reliance and family hardship; that is, hardship which imprisonment creates for a person other than the offender, is itself an appeal for mercy.  Properly understood, therefore, the purpose and effect of the exceptional circumstances test is to limit the availability of the court's discretion to exercise mercy on that ground.  There is no residual discretion to exercise mercy to the family hardship where the relevant circumstances are shown not to be exceptional.  However, the effect on the offender of the hardship caused to family members by imprisonment raises different considerations to which the exceptional circumstances test has no application.'

67Counsel pointed to an example of those principles being applied in the matter of DPP v Gera.  The accused in that case pleaded guilty to intentionally cause serious injury, a crime with a maximum term of 20 years.  The circumstances of his offence was a glassing of a man in a hotel.

68The two-year, wholly suspended sentence imposed was found on the Director's appeal to be inadequate.  The Court of Appeal indicated a sentence of at least four to five years would have been justified.  However, due to the application of the family hardship principles, a sentence of three years was imposed, and again, it was wholly suspended by the Court of Appeal.

69In that case, the accused's wife was profoundly deaf, and one of their children was profoundly autistic.  It was held by the Court of Appeal that notwithstanding the serious offence and the recent statements about that offence - that is that glassing warranted lengthy, immediate gaol - mercy was clearly warranted.

70This case reveals the importance of individualised sentencing in advance of the High Court's statements in Dalgliesh that individualised sentencing is fundamental to the sentencing process.

71The prosecution submission was simply that on the available material, while properly prompting sympathy for your family's circumstances, it does not reach the higher test of exceptional circumstances.  The prosecution contended there was limited evidence as to the extent and the practicalities of the reliance on you, and not enough evidence to allow for the rare finding of exceptional circumstances of the kind that was urged by your counsel.

72The role of family hardship can be of acute and perhaps more acute relevance when the circumstances of the offence, and the offender, mean the question of incarceration or not is one that is very stark.  In Pananucio, President Winneke, with the agreement of Justices Booking and Charles, made this point - this case is cited at paragraph 10 of Markovic.  It says this:

'Thus, it has often been stated that it is a general principle of sentencing that the court should usually disregard the impact which a sentence will have upon the members of a prisoner's family unless exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated.  The principle has been often stated that it does not need repeating.  It goes without saying, I think, that the graver the crime for which the prisoner is being sentenced, the more difficult it will be to find exceptional circumstances because the relief usually sought and generally necessary to alleviate the plight of the relevant family members affected will require absolution from incarceration.'

73At this point is important to note that the submissions of your counsel were that a just and appropriate sentence is a community corrections order and no more; that is, no imprisonment at all.  It was submitted that no imprisonment was necessary, just, or appropriate.

74Of equal importance is the prosecution contended that some immediate imprisonment is required, but a sentence combining imprisonment and a community corrections order was within the range of my sentencing discretion.  In other words, the question of whether hardship is mitigatory is within the broad context that the matters for and against you, when synthesised, leave open whether a sentence of last resort, that being gaol, is the only just and appropriate sentence.

75Thus, after re-reading all the evidence, both medical and testimonials as well, together with the submissions of the parties, both written and oral, and then after much anxious consideration, I am, in the end, not satisfied on the balance that the hardship to your family is at the level of being exception such that it is mitigatory.

76There is much in your family circumstances that elicit justifiable compassion. 
I consider all your personal circumstances, including the heartbreak of watching your wife change and not being able to cope as she once did, together with the serious issues that arise in respect of yourself.

77These are all part of the constellation of matters that go to who you are and what your future holds.  They are important and they impact, positively so, on the high likelihood of you reforming.  You will always be deeply concerned for the welfare of your family, whatever your own circumstances.  These matters about your current circumstances are mitigatory and they are powerfully mitigatory.

78There are other matters that are mitigatory.  First, your plea of guilty is of real value.  You have, in the face of more serious offences, negotiated and pleaded guilty to this offence.  You saved the expense of a trial when negotiations occurred, over some time, and after the trial was listed and not reached in circuit lists.

79The delay, therefore, in the proceedings, is another important mitigatory matter.  You have had these matters and the other now withdrawn but more serious matters hanging over your head for near-on three years.  In this time, the stress has added to the stress of your family problems.

80You have done what you could in the intervening time to get on with things, having lost your career in the firearms industry.  You have commenced rehabilitating, or more accurately, you resumed your lawful ways.  The delay in this case is a significant mitigatory matter.

81By your plea, and in the time since your arrest, you have expressed remorse.  You have lost your career, and by reference to the testimonials, that is a significant loss.  You were very highly regarded and skilled.  You will not be able to work as you once had before.  Not everyone who commits a crime loses their career and their capacity to engage in a lifelong interest.  It is a matter of extra and lifelong punishment which I have taken into account.

82As mentioned, your counsel submitted a community corrections order was the just and appropriate sentence, and the prosecution contended a combination sentence was within range.  The assessment of you by the Corrections officers was favourable.  There is no need for any particular programs to further aid your rehabilitation.

83In introducing the legislation that established the current community corrections system, then then-Attorney-General, Mr Clark, made clear what was the purposes of the new community corrections order regime.  It was allowed for punishment and targeted rehabilitation, but importantly, the Attorney-General added that community corrections orders allow families to stay together. 
This was an important factor to ensure proper rehabilitation, and thus, the greater likelihood of no further offending.

84The Court of Appeal, in the important guideline judgment of Boulton, reiterated this aspect of the community corrections system.  The community corrections regime is plainly not a soft option and ought not be said to be.  The principles articulated by the Court of Appeal in Boulton are now well-known and need not be set out in great length.

85What is important here is that the Court of Appeal made clear that the community corrections regime is appropriate for serious offences and those that were cited as examples were plainly more serious than this offence that you have faced, with its maximum term of seven years.

86The offences referred to in the Court of Appeal decision as being offences which may, in the past, have had mediums terms of imprisonment that now can be dealt with by a community corrections order included aggravated burglary with a maximum term of 25 years, intentionally cause injury with a maximum term of 20 years, and indeed, some sex offences.

87The statute - that is, the Sentencing Act - and the principles in Boulton and other cases thereafter well establish that imprisonment is the punishment of last resort and cannot be imposed unless the sentencing purposes cannot be satisfactorily expressed by punishment less that incarceration.

88The primary sentencing purposes here are plainly denunciation and deterrence to others who may consider possession of unregistered firearms. 
Your rehabilitation is important, and in my view, your prospects are excellent.

89The question is:  can all the sentencing purposes be appropriately and justly satisfied by a sentence without any incarceration?  By reason of the significant weight needed to be given to denunciation and deterrence, especially to others, in my view, synthesising all factors for and against you, there must be some imprisonment, grave as that is in all the circumstances.

90The sentence, in my view, which I will announce shortly, remains a merciful one as your circumstances and your prior good character justifiably lead me to impose a sentence which no doubt will seem to you overly harsh but is, in my view, very restrained, given the seriousness of this particular firearm and your offending in the possession of it and your conduct with it.

91In coming to the decision to impose imprisonment and the length of it, I have factored in the very important matter that each day will be very onerous to you as you worry about how your family are coping.  This is an important aspect referred to in Markovic, and I give it significant weight.

92Doing the best I can in respect of this charge of possession of an unregistered firearm, Mr White, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months to be followed by a two-year community corrections order, the conditions being 200 hours of unpaid work and supervision.

93Had you pleaded not guilty to these offences, I would have imposed a sentence of three years with a minimum term of 20 months. 

94Are there any other orders required?

95COUNSEL:  No, Your Honour. 

96HIS HONOUR:  Mr White, there will be a document produced.  You will have to sign it, and once you do that, it will bring these matters in this court to an end.

97Mr White, the conditions that apply to everyone who is on a community corrections order are, first, you must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time the order is enforced.  The other matters
I am about to read out to you are really about cooperation and providing information.

98So you must comply with obligations and requirements under the sentencing regulations there about information provided to the Office of Corrections, having your photo taken, and the like.  You must comply with those obligations. 
You must report to and receive visits from the Office of Corrections.

99You must report to the community corrections order centre here in Geelong, the address is here, within two clear working days of the order starting.  You must let a community corrections officer know within two clear working days if you change your address or your job.  You must not leave Victoria without permission to do so, and you must obey all lawful instructions from the Office of Corrections.

100So those are the mandatory conditions that apply to you for the two years that you are on this community corrections order.  In addition, you must perform - excuse me, I think there is a printing error.  Mr Casement and Ms Skoblar, you heard me announce the number of hours that I require Mr White to do?

101MR CASEMENT:  I did.

102HIS HONOUR:  And they were?

103MR CASEMENT:  Two hundred hours is my note.

104HIS HONOUR:  I presumed that I had.

105MS SKOBLAR:  That was my note too, Your Honour.

106HIS HONOUR:  I just have a typing error here.  Thank you.  So you have to perform 200 hours of unpaid community work over the two years, and you must be under the supervision of the Office of Corrections for that two years. 
A document will be produced that accurately sets that out.  If you sign that, I will sign it.  As I say, it brings the matter in this court to an end.  If Mr Shock could take to the rear of the court?  Thank you. 

107Mr White, you have to go with the prison officers now.  Mr Shock and
Mr Casement will be able to see you, but unfortunately, no-one else.  They will be able to provide to your family further details as to when they might see you.

108I thank counsel for their considerable assistance in this case and all the people that have shown very considerable interest in it.  Thank you. 

‑ ‑ ‑