Director of Public Prosecutions v White (a pseudonym)

[2025] VCC 154

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

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

RAYMOND WHITE (A PSEUDONYM)

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 January 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 and 25 February 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v White (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 154

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence

Catchwords:              Guilty by jury verdict of three charges of rape; pleaded guilty to persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order; attempting to pervert the course of justice – significant history of drug use – low risk of recidivism – no remorse.

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958; Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981; Children, Youth and Families Act2005; Sex Offenders Registration Act2004.

Cases Cited:Watkins; Roberts v R [2023] VSCA 92; Clarkson v The Queen [2011] 32 VR 361; Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571; R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102;

Sentence:Total Effective Sentence of 10 years and six months with non-parole period of seven years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms S Locke for plea Mr S. Marshall for sentence	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Sala for plea Ms D. Giannopoulos for sentence

HIS HONOUR:

1       On 22 October 2024, you Mr Raymond White[1], were found guilty by jury verdict of three charges of rape on indictment N12060907.A.  The victim is Vickie Johnson[2], your ex-wife.  The maximum penalty for rape is 25 years imprisonment and the standard sentence is 10 years imprisonment.

[1]A pseudonym

[2]A pseudonym

2       On 23 October 2024, you were arraigned and pleaded guilty to an offence of persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order on indictment N12060907.B and attempting to pervert the course of just on indictment N12060907.C.  The maximum penalty for persisting contravention of an intervention order is five years' imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for attempting to pervert the course of justice is 25 years imprisonment.

3       The circumstances of the rape offences for which you are to be sentenced are based on the trial evidence of Vickie Johnson.

4       You married Ms Johnson in May 2013.  You have two children with her, James[3] and Stephanie[4].

[3]A pseudonym

[4]A pseudonym

5       

Ms Johnson gave evidence that after 2018 the relationship deteriorated and you became violent towards her from time to time and you also threatened her.  You were using drugs and when you were using drugs you became angry and aggressive. Your youngest child Stephanie, a daughter, was born on

7 August 2021.  You were to be her support person and the delivery was with a midwife.  The birth was in the end induced.

6       While she was in labour you went to pick up James from her mother's house, so that he would be at home that night.  He was 19 months old at that time.

7       After two nights in hospital on 9 August 2021, Ms Johnson returned home.  You picked her up from the hospital.  You were drug affected.  You and the victim and your new baby arrived home at around dinnertime, between 5.30 and 6 pm.

8       Ms Johnson was breastfeeding Stephanie.  She put James to bed at around 7 pm.  You were out in the garage.  She went to bed at around 10 pm.  The next thing she recalls is waking up when you entered the bedroom.  You said to her, 'We are fucking'.  She responded, 'No, like that's disgusting, are you serious?  I'm bleeding it's not safe, no'.  You did not accept her answer and said words to the effect of, 'We are fucking'.  She said she could not physically resist you.  You are bigger than her and she fears you.  She was drowsy.  She lay there and she did not move.

9       You got into the bed, lifted the doona and pulled her pants down.  She was bleeding.  She had on a maternal pad and you pulled that down.  You put your penis into her vagina and started having sex with her.  She said she was sleep deprived and exhausted and she had just had a baby and she was sore and she was still bleeding.  She estimated the penetration continued for about five minutes.  You ejaculated inside her.  You then went into the ensuite adjoining the bedroom.  She looked down and she could see blood on her thighs.  You then went back to the garage.

10      The following day Ms Johnson spoke to a maternal health nurse, Anita Williams, who gave evidence in the trial.  She told Ms Williams that she had sex the previous night and asked about long term implications.  Ms Johnson was aware that the recommendation was not to have sex for six weeks.

11      She did not tell Ms Williams that the sexual intercourse was non- consensual.  On this point, she gave evidence that you were in the vicinity during the phone call, and she was concerned about you hearing her.

12      The issue in the trial in respect of this charge was consent and reasonable believe in consent.  There was no issue about whether sexual intercourse took place.  It is clear from the verdict of the jury that they accepted the evidence of Ms Johnson about the circumstances.   

13      The relationship continued until about March 2022, after which you separated. Thereafter, an Intervention Order was in place where you were not allowed to go inside her residence, but you were allowed to attend for custody and contact exchanges in relation to the children.

14      On 9 July 2022, during the Islamic period of Eid, Ms Johnson went to her mother's house.  You, Mr White, got in touch with her about James coming to your house that night.  You said you wanted to collect James but not Stephanie.  You said it was Eid and you wanted to have dinner with him.  She agreed to this.  An arrangement was made that you would drive back to her house and collect James.  This contact occurred between 1.30 and 2 pm.

15      She drove home.  She went inside and got a bag ready for James.  James was in the back of the car while she did this.  You then arrived and parked your car in the driveway behind hers.  She gave evidence her plan was to go back to her mother's once you had collected James.

16      After speaking to you she went back inside the residence.  You came to her front door and said, 'Open up'.  You said you were not going to hurt her.  You said, 'Open up, I want to talk'.  She said eventually she opened the door because she believed you were not going to do anything.

17      You took off your shoes and went into the residence.  You said to her, 'We're going to have makeup sex'.  She said, 'No'.  James was still outside in the car.  She said she refused a hug from you and she was walking backwards.  She said you were very calm and you gently pushed her back into the bedroom and onto the bed.  She said the push was to the shoulders.

18      

You then said to her, 'We're going to fuck'.  You told her you were going to, 'Lick her off'.  She said, 'I don't want it, I don't need it'.  She said, 'This is rape'.

Ms Johnson said you were adamant about what was going to happen.  She was wearing a maxi dress down to her knees which you pulled up.  You pulled down her underwear.  You started licking her clitoris.  This is the basis of Charge 2 of rape.

19      She said to you, 'This is disgusting, I don't want it, I don't need this, this is rape.  Just get our son and fuck off'.  She said she was numb whilst this was going on.  You were holding her by the hips.  This stopped her from moving.  She was trying to move up the bed to try and escape.  She said she was lying down and you were just staring into her eyes.

20      

You smiled at her.  You then pulled down your pants still staring at her.

You then started penetrating her vagina with your penis, which is the basis of Charge 3.

21      When you had finished you ejaculated onto her stomach.  You then went into the ensuite.  She could hear the tap running.  She burst into tears whilst you were in the bathroom.  During penetration she was crying and you said, 'Why are you doing this?  Why are you crying?'  You told her you wanted to, 'Work this out'.

22      

The issue at the trial was whether this conduct took place at all.  The main basis of the defence case was CCTV footage of interactions between you and

Ms Johnson outside her residence both before and after the incident.  The argument made to the jury was that your interactions were inconsistent with the conduct she alleged.

23      However, the jury has accepted her evidence and I sentence you on the basis of the circumstances that I have outlined in these remarks.

24      On 17 August 2022 you contacted the victim on her mobile phone five times in contravention of an intervention order which was made on 2 May 2022.  That order had been varied on 19 July 2022 after the alleged sexual offending.  And thereafter you were prohibited from having any contact with the victim or your children. You were interviewed on 18 August 2022 in respect of these offences.  When you were released from custody you had your mobile phone returned to you.  You immediately called the victim and said, 'You fucking retard, you told everything to the cops'.  You abused her, alleging she was a bad mother and that if you went to gaol the children would be left without a father because of her.  This phone call went for eight minutes.  You called her a further 19 times that day and continued to abuse her.  Between the 19th and the 23rd of August, you called her a further nine times.  That is the basis of the persistent contravention.

25      Turning then to the attempt to pervert the course of justice. On 22 September 2022 at 9.08 am you were remanded in custody.  On 24 September 2022 you called your mother and said the following to her, 'Mum, tell Vickie whatever she wants we'll do it.  Go tell her mother.  Her mother doesn't know what she's doing.  If her mum knew she would break her head.  Tell Vickie to reverse her statement.’

26      On 25 September 2022, you called your mother who told you that she had spoken to Alison Johnson[5], your cousin, who was going to talk to Vickie.

[5]A pseudonym

27      On 29 September 2022, Alison spoke to the victim about withdrawing her statement in exchange for your agreement to a favourable resolution of the outstanding family law matters.

28      On 1 October 2022, you called your mother and during the conversation you reiterated that efforts should be made to have the complainant withdraw her statement.

29      On 4 October 2022, the victim advised police she had been contacted and asked to withdraw her police statement.

30      On 25 October 2022, police obtained the recording of your calls from custody which is the basis of this offence.  You pleaded guilty to the attempt of attempting to pervert the course of justice after the trial was completed, although your counsel, Mr Sala, had indicated before the trial that the matter would almost certainly resolve, and it did.  The breach of intervention order matter was never a trial.

31      I accept your plea to these offences is consistent with a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.  I am not satisfied though that you have any significant remorse for those offences in the circumstances of this case.

32      Nonetheless, your pleas of guilty to those offences have saved the court and the prosecution the use of the resources required for a trial and you have spared the victim the need to give further evidence in relation to the matters.  You are entitled to a sentencing discount for your guilty pleas.  Of course, the same mitigatory benefits are not available in relation to the rape offences.

33      A victim impact statement from Ms Johnson was tendered and she read that victim impact statement to the court over a video link.  It is apparent from her victim impact statement that the impact of your offending on her and your children has been very substantial.

34      She says she feels broken emotionally and is struggling to put herself back together, whilst at the same time trying to be strong and stable mother to her children.  She feels like a shadow of the person she used to be.  She says she is terrified of trusting anyone, especially in an intimate relationship.  She feels she cannot trust any male figure around her children or herself.  She questions her ability to protect her children.

35      She says the trauma from the rape and the domestic and family violence has left her, 'Questioning my worth and my ability to ever feel safe again'.  The fear has isolated her and taken away opportunities to rebuild her personal life.  She says that her home, once her sanctuary, has become a place of fear and helplessness.  She replays the memories of being controlled and manipulated leaving her emotionally exhausted and haunted by what happened.

36      She feels at times like she has no one to turn to.  She feels robbed of enjoying every moment with her children in creating happy memories together.  She says that healing has been a slow and painful journey and there is a long way to go.  She says, 'I hope the court understands the profound and lasting effects these experiences have had on me and my children.  Every day I am trying to rebuild what was broken but that path is far from easy'.

37      It is clear that your offending and its impact on the V has been substantial.  This is an important matter informing just punishment for this very serious offending.

38      

The offending in this case falls into the category of domestic violence offending or intimate partner offending.  In numerous cases in recent years the

Court of Appeal has emphasised the need for general deterrence and denunciation when sentencing for such offences.

39      In the case of DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314, the Court of Appeal said,

'Those who engage or contemplate engaging in such violence in whatever context should be in no doubt that offending of this kind will attract very heavy sentences'. 

By this means, sentencing courts express on behalf of the community the strongest denunciation of such abhorrent conduct.

40      The authorities in respect of intimate partner offending apply to your offending.  In relation to rape offences in the case of Mokhtari, the Court of Appeal said this about the offence of rape. 

'The very act of rape is inherently serious, simply by virtue of the invasion of the victim's bodily integrity without consent.  It is quite simply an act of violence whether or not accompanied by other violent conduct.  The violation is physical, emotional and psychological.  It follows that aggravating features apart all acts of nonconsensual penetration are objectively serious irrespective of the form and the extent of the penetration'.

41      

The seriousness of any rape offence is reflected in the maximum penalty of

25 years imprisonment and the standard sentence of 10 years imprisonment.  It is also a category 1 offence a further indicator of seriousness.

42      The first charge of rape occurred at a time when the victim was highly vulnerable emotionally and physically, occurring on the night when she returned home, just having given birth to your second child.  She was sleep deprived, sore and bleeding, when in defiance of her clear indication she was not interested in sexual activity you penetrated her vagina with your penis and ejaculated inside of her.  You treated her like she was your possession, rather than your partner and the mother of your children.  This was egregious offending, aggravated by her vulnerability.

43      Charges 2 and 3 took place when you were separated and an intervention order was in place to protect the victim.  You were only entitled to attend at her residence for child handover reasons not to enter the residence which is what you did.

44      Again, the offending occurred in circumstances where the complainant made clear she was not consenting.  You were not prepared to accept that the relationship was over and you were not deterred by the presence of an intervention order.  The offending exemplifies your need to control the victim. Both incidents took place at her home where she was entitled to feel safe.  You did not use a condom on either occasion.  These are all serious example of rape.

45      

As between Charge 1 and Charge 3, which I regard as the most serious offences of rape here, there are differing aggravating circumstances.  In

Charge 1, her vulnerability is a significant matter.  In Charge 3 and of course Charge 2, the presence of the intervention order is also a substantial aggravating factor.  In relation to Charge 3, of course, you will be sentenced as a serious sexual offender and I will return to the significance of that.

46      There are no significant factors relied on in this case that reduce your moral culpability which I regard as substantial for this serious sexual offending.

47      The offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice is obviously a serious offence, carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.  In the case of DPP v Oksuz [2015] VSCA 316, Justice of Appeal Kyrou said this of the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. 

'The offence is serious because the conduct that constitutes it strikes at the heart of the administration of justice.  It does so because it involves an offender seeking to determination witnesses from giving evidence or giving truthful evidence in court proceedings.  Where the offence is committed in the context of a criminal proceeding the aim of the offending conduct is to undermine the Crown's ability to secure a conviction against an accused person and thus bring him or her to justice.  The serious harm to public safety and the rule of law resulting from such offending conduct is obvious'.

48      Those comments obviously apply to your offending here.  In this case you asked your mother to take steps to have the victim reverse her statement and you returned to the topic in a subsequent discussion with her.  You initiated this with your mother just two days after you had been remanded in custody.  The victim was approached by your cousin, Alison and your mother told you that this had taken place.

49      I do not infer that you knew exactly what your cousin was going to say to the victim about an offer of settlement of the property proceedings, but your actions instigated the approach, and you plainly thought such an approach had the capacity to bring to an end the serious criminal proceeding your faced.  This was calculated conduct and your culpability is significant.

50      That said, some of the more aggravating circumstances that are often seen in these types of offences such as threats of violence to the victim are absent in this case which involved just a couple of discussions with your mother.  The offence of attempt to pervert the course of justice covers a wide range of circumstances and this was relatively confined conduct by you.

51      In my view this is an example of a serious offence which falls towards the lower end of the spectrum.  I do not say it is at the lowest end of the spectrum.  Rather that it falls towards that end of the spectrum.

52      The persistent contravention offence in this case was serious in my view given you called the victim immediately after you had been interviewed in relation to the rape offences and your mobile phone had been returned to.  These orders are designed to protect people in the circumstances the victim was in.  But even though you had just been interviewed for rape you took no notice of the order.

53      You abused her for going to the police and you tried to manipulate her emotionally by telling her the children would be left without a father if you went to gaol.  You then bombarded her with another 19 calls that day and further calls in the ensuing days.

54      You have a relevant previous court appearance on 20 January 2021 at the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court for contravening a family violence intervention order and other offences against Ms Johnson.  Those offences included unlawful assault, threatening to kill, criminal damage recklessly causing injury and multiple offences of breaching intervention orders.

55      You were placed on a community correction order for two years.  That order was in place at the time all of these offences took place.  That is an aggravating feature of the offending in this case.

56      I have been provided with summaries of previous offences that indicate significant examples of intimate partner violence and are indicative of ongoing controlling violent behaviour by you towards Ms Johnson.  The rape offending in this case was an escalation of your previous offending against her.

57      You were given a chance by the court when you were placed on a community corrections order to curb your conduct but you did not take it.

58      You are not to be punished again for your prior offences but they are clearly relevant to the assessment of your moral culpability and prospects of rehabilitation and the weight to be given to community protection and specific deterrence.

59      Turning then to your personal circumstances.  You are 36 years old.  You are the youngest of three children to your mother, Mary[6], who is now 63 years old and your father, Danny[7], 72 years old.  Your background is Turkish.  You have a good relationship with both of your parents and your siblings.  You were previously married to a woman named Jacqueline[8].  You were together with her for four years.  You separated due to substance abuse issues.

[6]A pseudonym

[7]A pseudonym

[8]A pseudonym

60      You were married to the victim in this matter for about 10 years.  As I have already mentioned you have two children together now in the victim's care.  You have not seen your children for over two years.

61      

You were born in Australia.  You grew up in Broadmeadows.  You went to

Primary School until Grade 3, after which you went to an Islamic school for a couple of years before returning to Primary School.  You were not a good student.  You struggled through school but you managed to complete Year 10.

62      You were diagnosed with ADHD about three years ago by a doctor in Sunshine.  You were prescribed a stimulant mediation which you found effective.  Your father worked driving community buses.  He was a strict disciplinarian when you were younger.

63      When you left school, you worked in a mechanic shop and you completed a pre-apprenticeship as a mechanic.  You later worked on high performance vehicles.  You were there for about 10 years.  You then switched careers to construction and established your own building businesses which you say were very successful and you employed a range of subcontractors. You lost a substantial contract you had with childcare centres when you spent some time in prison for breaching an intervention order back in 2020.  You have only worked casually since then.

64      A psychological report from Ms Carla Lechner was tendered on the plea.  She assessed you as falling into the moderate to low risk for sexual reoffending.  This was based on the static 99 test.  Psychologically she diagnosed you as suffering from symptoms of ADHD with a stimulant and cannabis use disorder now in remission in the controlled environment of a prison.

65      She also diagnosed you as suffering from an adjustment disorder with depression.  She said that broadly people with mental health concerns find prison more difficult to manage because they have less robust coping skills and less access to individualised psychological support and intervention.  She said you would benefit from drug and alcohol counselling, psychological support and specific discussions regarding consent to sexual contact.

66      A letter from Dr Nitin Shukla, a consultant psychiatrist who treated you in 2021 was tendered.  At that time, you were prescribed antidepressants and there is also reference to ADHD in the letter.

67      You have a significant history of drug use.  You started using cannabis at the age of 18 and then you used methylamphetamine regularly between the ages of 20 and 25.

68      At the time of this offending, you were using methylamphetamine extensively.  That was part of the evidence in the case.  Your counsel, Mr Sala, submitted that your ADHD and its symptoms: impulsivity and reduced inhibition, are relevant to your problematic drug use and issues in mood management.  In this way he submitted they are part of your background relevant to the assessment of your moral culpability.

69      I accept this.  This is not an application strictly of Verdins principles but as a matter personal to you, your psychological state justifies marginal reduction in the assessment of your moral culpability which obviously remains substantial in the circumstances of these offences and considering your relevant prior conviction.

70      It is difficult to fully assess your prospects of rehabilitation given that you deny the rape offences and you have shown no remorse or insight into that offending.  I also find it artificial to separate the rape offending from the attempt to pervert the course of justice and persistent contravention offences when assessing your prospects.

71      I accept the prosecution submission that all offences are linked by your attitude of entitlement and possessive jealousy towards the victim.  Furthermore, you have a prior conviction for intimate partner offending.

72      It is true that you do not have prior convictions for sexual offences and you have been assessed by Ms Lechner as a low risk of sexual offending but in the circumstances where you have shown no remorse of insight, I can only be guarded about your prospects of rehabilitation in respect of any types of offences that you have committed.

73      In my opinion you remain a risk to offend against any future intimate partner and that includes in respect of sexual offending.  I accept that drugs have been an underlying problem for you not unrelated to your offending and if you can address your drug abuse and then your rehabilitative prospects will be enhanced.

74      In custody you have completed courses relating to drug rehabilitation and certificates of successful completion have been provided.  You have at least done what you can in custody to further your rehabilitation.

75      You have a solid work history and your criminal history is not indicative of an entirely entrenched recidivist offender.  So, there is certainly hope for your prospects and I have attempted to reflect this in the non-parole period that I have imposed.

76      Clearly for this offending just punishment, denunciation, general deterrence and specific deterrence must all be given prominence.  Furthermore, community protection is a significant consideration given the overall circumstances here including your prior conviction.

77      For Charge 3 of rape, I am required to regard community protection as the most prominent sentencing purpose.  This is because that for this offence you will be sentenced as a serious sexual offender.

78      Furthermore, because I sentence you as a serious sexual offender the sentence is to be cumulative unless otherwise ordered.  The ordinary presumption of concurrency is displaced.  The prosecution does not seek a disproportionate sentence on Charge 3 and nor is one necessary for that offence.

79      The standard sentence for rape is 10 years imprisonment.  The standard sentence applies to an offence in the middle range of seriousness based only on its objective factors.  A standard sentence is just one of the many matters to which I must have regard in deciding the sentences in this case.  It is a legislative guidepost.  It is not a mandatory sentence.  Nor is it the starting point from which to add or subtract time.

80      In fixing the sentences in this matter I have had regard to the standard sentence among all the matters which I must have regard to in deciding the appropriate sentence.

81      The sentence I will impose for the offences of rape in this case are all lower than the standard sentence.  In assessing current sentencing practices, I have only had regard to the sentences imposed for standard sentence offences.

[I just want to suspend my sentencing remarks for a moment because I am about to turn to totality and it just occurs to me, Ms Giannopoulos, that in assessing the totality principle I might have to have regard to the sentence in 2023 as well.  Was that after he was remanded for this or not?

82      MS GIANNOPOULOS:  In 2023 was after he was remanded.

83      HIS HONOUR:  So he was on remand.  Yes.  I just need the details here.  So he's remanded on this.  I don't think I was ever provided with this.  He was remanded on this and then what happened?  He gets a sentence.  He breaches everything and there's a consol and he gets another - - -

84      MS GIANNOPOULOS:  There's a consol and he receives – bear with me for one moment, Your Honour, I'll just pull it back up.

85      HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

86      MR MARSHALL:  Eight months in prison.

87      HIS HONOUR:  Eight months.

88      MR MARSHALL:  On 31 July 2023.

89      MS GIANNOPOULOS:  That's correct.

90      HIS HONOUR:  All right.  So his PSD here is calculated after the eight months has been taken out.  Is that so?  Because if he served a sentence of eight months then the PSD would have to be taken out, wouldn't it?

91      MR MARSHALL:  Yes.  I think we might need to just double check our calculations here.

92      HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

93      MR MARSHALL:  Because I think that's – I think that's how I'd originally calculated it, Your Honour, but then - - -

94      HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  No.  Look, it just occurred just – I didn't have all these details and now that I know he's served the eight, I wonder if the PSD is right.

95      MR MARSHALL:  Yes.  I think - - -

96      HIS HONOUR:  And what's more - - -

97      MR MARSHALL:  I wasn't here for the plea, Your Honour.

98      HIS HONOUR:  No, no.

99      MR MARSHALL:  And I think I didn't have a note of the submissions, but my calculations were – you know, I'd taken into account those 146 days which were reckoned on that consolidation.

100     HIS HONOUR:  So he got 146 on all that, right?

101     MR MARSHALL:  Yes.

102     HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

103     MR MARSHALL:  So I deducted that for what was available to him in terms of PSD for this matter.

104     HIS HONOUR:  Right.

105     MR MARSHALL:  So I had 614 as of 31 January, which was the plea date which would leave us at 635, I believe.

106     HIS HONOUR:  You had better check this.

107     MR MARSHALL:  Yes.

108     HIS HONOUR:  We need to get this right.

109     MR MARSHALL:  I think I'd better have a conversation with Ms Giannopoulos.

110     HIS HONOUR:  Apologise for this, it's just after you told me and as I was reading the sentence I realised that there could be an issue there.  And I don't think I ever got a specific submission about how that might interact with this sentence and the relevance of the totality principle to that eight months, Ms Giannopoulos. You don't ignore that he has been in custody for all that time.

111     MS GIANNOPOULOS:  We don't, Your Honour, no.

112     HIS HONOUR:  No and when I'm sentencing I don't.

113     MS GIANNOPOULOS:  No.

114     HIS HONOUR:  But if the PSD has to be reduced then I need to factor that into a sentence.

115     MS GIANNOPOULOS:  It might be prudent for us to have a discussion in relation to that.

116     HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  I think so.  Can you work that out?  Have you got a printout of this other sentence or just somebody can hand me - - -

117     MR MARSHALL:  I don't have a printout here.

118     HIS HONOUR:  Look, what I'll do, I'll read the rest of what I was going to say but I won't pronounce sentence.  So, I'll just resume the sentence].

HIS HONOUR: 

119     The totality principle requires that the overall sentence imposed must be just and proportionate to the total criminality of your offending.  There are four separate criminal incidents involved in this case.  The rape offences arise from two separate incidents, separated by 11 months and therefore some significant cumulation is necessary as between the incidents.

120     You are a serious sexual offender for Charge 3 and although the totality principle still applies, it is modified by the statutory presumption of cumulation rather than concurrency for such offences.

121     The attempt to pervert the course of justice is again a separate criminal incident of a different nature, although related.

122     Similarly, the persistent contravention offence, although related, requires some level of cumulation.  That said, to comply with the totality principles the periods of cumulation I will order are moderate.

123     The non-parole period is the minimum period justice requires you to serve before becoming eligible for release on parole.  The non-parole period mitigates punishment for favour of rehabilitation.  It must be consistent with the objective gravity of the offending.

124     Ms Sala submitted in this case I should allow for a length period of supervision on parole.  This will be your first substantial period of imprisonment and there is some merit to an extended period of supervision, but I have kept in mind the need to avoid a non-parole period inconsistent with the objective gravity of the offending.

Resume Sentence on 25 February 2025

125     Mr White, we lost you the other day because I had the issue about the pre-sentence detention that I had to clarify, then the link went down.  I am not sure if you were on the link, but we clarified that the pre-sentence detention last week was 638 days, so it is 642 days now.  That is because you served eight months on another sentence during the period since you were remanded in custody.

126     So, I had read everything essentially, but I was not able to pronounce sentence until that was clarified. 

127I will add that Mr White, you have been in custody now since September 2022, which is an overall period of nearly 900 days.  However, in that time you served an eight-month sentence for other matters which included the breach of the correction order that you were on.  Therefore, that period cannot be counted as pre‑sentence detention.

128However, I can hardly ignore that you have been in custody for all that time and the totality principle applies in the sense that I must consider that period as well in deciding the appropriate sentences.  So, I have altered the periods that I had intended to impose in respect of cumulation in this matter, to take that into account.

129Therefore, the sentences that I impose are as follows.

130On Indictment N12060907.A

131On Charge 1 of rape, you are convicted and sentenced to seven years and six months' imprisonment.

132On Charge 2 of rape, you are convicted and sentenced to five years and
10 months' imprisonment.

133On Charge 3 of rape, I have also sentenced you to seven years and six months' imprisonment.

134In respect of that indictment two years and two months of the sentence on Charge 3 is cumulative on the base sentence, which applies to Charge 1.  Therefore, on that indictment the overall total effective sentence is nine years and eight months.

135In relation to Indictment N12060907.B

136You are convicted and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment for the persistent contravention of an intervention order.

137In relation to Indictment N12060907.C, attempt to pervert the course of justice, you are sentenced to a period of 18 months' imprisonment.

138Two months of the sentence for the persistent contravention offence on N12060907.B and eight months of the sentence for attempting to pervert the course of justice on N12060907.C are cumulative on each other and on the total effective sentence on the first indictment, which gives you an overall total effective sentence of 10 years and six months.

139I fix a minimum non-parole period of seven years.

140I allow pre-sentence detention across all the indictments at 642 days.

141I indicate that in relation to the persistent contravention of intervention order charge, but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of 16 months and made eight months cumulative.  And in relation to the attempt to pervert the course of justice, but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of two years with 14 months' cumulative.

142I think that is the best I can do for the 6AAA.

143I am not asked to make any other ancillary orders, I indicated last time, and I am not making an order in relation to the phone.  So those are the orders that I make.

144There will be notations on the orders that these periods of cumulation apply across the three indictments.  If there is any problem with records then let me know, but I do not think there will be.  Nothing else I need to?

145MR  MARSHALL:  No, no, thank you, Your Honour.

146HIS HONOUR:  Thanks both of you.

‑ ‑ ‑