DPP and Gunawardena
[2015] VCC 477
•21 April 2015
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No.14-01457
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| KRISHAN GUNAWARDENA |
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 9 February 2015 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 April 2015 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP and Gunawardena | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2015] VCC 477 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Subject: Criminal Law
Catchwords: Sentence – Plea of guilty – Using carriage service to access child pornography – Using carriage service to transmit child pornography – knowingly possess child pornography
Legislation Cited: Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases: R v Gent [2005] 162 A. Crim. R. 29; Boulton v R [2014] VSCA 342; DPP (C’th) v Zarb [2014] VSCA 347; DPP (C’th) v Guest [2014] VSCA 29
Sentence:Total Effective Sentence Charges 1 and 2 (Commonwealth) 19 months’ imprisonment – Release after 4 months’ imprisonment served – Commonwealth order and recognisance to be of good behaviour after 5 years – Community Corrections Order imposed for 2 years on Charge 3 (State) – s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 declaration
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director | Ms J. McGillivray | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| of Public Prosecutions | ||
| For the Accused | Mr A. Brand | Slades & Parsons |
HER HONOUR:
1 Krishnan Gunawardena, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of using a carriage service to access child pornography, one charge of using a carriage service to transmit child pornography, and one charge of knowingly possessing child pornography.
2 The first two mentioned offences have a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment, and the third offence has a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment. The maximum penalties reflect the seriousness with which the offences are regarded by the Commonwealth Parliament in the first two charges, and the State Parliament in respect of Charge 3.
3 You were identified by a Queensland Police taskforce through your email account as having transmitted child exploitation material. On 31 July 2013, Victoria Police members attended your home address where you resided with your sister and brother-in-law. They executed a search warrant and you were arrested. Numerous items were seized by police, including an HP laptop computer which was beside your bed. A record of interview was conducted with you where you told police you began exchanging emails containing child pornography about one year ago; this gives rise to Charge 2.
4 You said that you had used your laptop computer to access the internet and receive emails containing child exploitation material, images and videos; which gives rise to Charge 1. You created an email account under a false name because you knew what you were doing was wrong and you did not want to use your personal email address because of this. You told police that you get excited whenever you see a girl or kid naked. You said that you got hooked on the child exploitation material videos and enjoyed watching them. You traded child exploitation material videos and images via email and this also goes to Charge 2.
5 You said that you kept the child exploitation material videos and emails stored in your falsely named email account. This relates to Charge 3. You said that you stored some of the images in a hidden folder on your laptop computer so that other people using your laptop could not find them.
6 You estimated that you had received 50 child pornography video files from other people that you did not personally know via email and forwarded on whatever video and images to other people that you did not know. There is no suggestion that these people were innocent recipients of such material.
7 You said that although you knew that it was illegal, you found child pornography material to be sexually arousing. You said that you regularly watched pornography to achieve sexual gratification by masturbating whilst you were watching.
8 You provided police with your online email account details and password for your falsely named email account, consenting to it being accessed by them. Examination of the account revealed that you were actively using the account to contact other users in attempts to source child exploitation material from them via email. You indicated to the other users that your preferred child exploitation material was hardcore video files of babies and toddlers and of children up to 11 years old. You said the younger the better. You successfully obtained and sent a large number of emails containing child pornography. You also encouraged the sexual abuse and exploitation of children by the requests that you made in your emails.
9 On 20 May 2013, you exchanged emails with another email user, where you said that you were interested in toddler boys between "birth and five" and girls from 0 to 11, "pervy mum stuff" and that you had a collection to share. You then emailed the other user saying, "Can you get your kids on video chat, I like to see toddlers being touched?"
10 The data obtained from seized electronic evidence was examined and classified by police. The material found in your laptop and email account combined, which gives rise to Charge 3, was as follows: There were 26 videos, and 1,149 images classified as Level 1, being depictions of children with no sexual activity but showing nudity, suggestive poses and the like; there were 93 videos and 30 images at Level 2 classification, being images in the nature of solo masturbation by a child or sex acts between children, including the use of a penetrative toy by the victim; there were 217 videos and 230 images, at Level 3, being material in the nature of non-penetrative sexual activity between children and adults such as mutual masturbation and other non-penetrative sexual activities; there were 887 videos and 168 images, at level 4, being penetrative sexual activity between children and adults, including intercourse, cunnilingus and fellatio. There were 28 videos and 17 images, at level 5, being in the nature of sadism, bestiality or sexual acts involving humiliation such as bondage as well as involving child abuse over and above the sexual abuse; there were 10 images, at level 6, in the nature of anime, cartoons, or comics et cetera depicting children engaged in sexual poses or activity. When I have spoken about the nature of the videos or images, I have given a general, or a précis, of what that particular category represents. In total, there were 1,251 individual videos and 1,624 individual images, each containing child exploitation material and available for viewing by the computer user, which were possessed by you.
11 Your offending in respect of Charge 1 endured between 31 July 2012 and 31 March 2013, a period of 8 months. In relation to Charge 2, I was told that analysis of your email account revealed that you had transmitted 755 different child exploitation material images and multimedia to 68 individual email addresses between 9 December 2012 and 22 July 2013, a period of about seven months. These are substantial periods, with the transmission continuing for nearly four months after you had accessed the material.
12 Therefore, your criminal activity was sustained and repeated, rather than being spontaneous or "one-off" events. I was told the majority of the material stored on your Gmail account and laptop computer depicted the sexual penetration of extremely young children, who appeared to be under five years and included babies and toddlers.
13 Mr Gunawardena, your offending is most serious, and deserving of a punishment which is just in all of the circumstances. I have viewed a sample of the material which you possess and it is utterly cruel, depraved and repugnant. Not only did you actively seek out and access such material, but you shared it with 68 other people who apparently had the same kind of despicable interests as you. To think that this type of material was sexually exciting for you gives me great cause for concern, as does the fact that you have had to learn to have victim empathy rather than appreciate the suffering of these children from the outset. It is people like you that help the evil trade of child pornography flourish, with the victims of it being helpless to control their images being disseminated repeatedly, potentially all over the globe and in perpetuity.
14 In sentencing you, I have had regard for the factors set out in R v Gent [2005] 162 A. Crim. R. 29 (at 99).
15 I have already referred to the duration of the offending in respect of each of the charges.
16 As the learned prosecutor said in her written submissions, whilst the number of the images, although significant, was not at the higher end of the scale for matters of this kind, you had videos and/or images which fell within each of the classification categories. Further, the number of victims depicted was not insignificant by any means.
17 I take into account that although a large proportion of the still images were classification 1, the vast majority of video images were Level 3 or 4, being 217 and 887, of a total of 1,251 videos. Further, I understand that a number of the Level 1 images, a level which covers a broad spectrum of material, included children exposing their genitals. I also factor in the broad range of the ages of the children, but that your focus was on especially young female children including babies and children or toddlers under five.
18 I was told that when seeking to obtain material from like-minded individuals, you repeatedly said that your preference was for hardcore video files of infants or children with an age range of 0 to 11 years. You were also involved in disseminating material, although I do not double count this factor as it is the subject of a specific charge.
19 In your favour, you did not engage in this criminal conduct for monetary profit, although you did benefit from transmitting materials as you received child exploitation material in return. Whilst it was said that your conduct did not involve any procurement or direct sexual abuse by you, I note that on one occasion you asked for another to sexually interfere with their own child on a video chat. I understand that this was a contextual matter, rather than giving rise to any charge.
20 Strong general deterrence must attach to offending of this kind, which must also be firmly denounced. I have taken into account your background. You were born and raised in Sri Lanka in a middle class environment. Your family was supportive of you as you were growing up. You had a strict upbringing in the Roman Catholic faith. Your sister moved to Australia in 2004 and you followed her here in 2009. Your parents kept you in Sri Lanka to complete a diploma after school because they were concerned that you lacked maturity. You have lived with your sister and brother-in-law since arriving here and, after being financially supported by your family initially, you have had to make your own way financially, working in supermarkets part-time as you furthered your studies.
21 In 2013 you completed a Bachelor of Information Systems at Deakin University and have recently obtained work as a help-desk operator at a software company. In view of your offending I must say that your occupation gives me some cause for concern. However, since the offences before me there has been nothing further and it is to be hoped that this continues to be the case.
22 Your sister also holds a responsible position in the workforce. She and her husband are very supportive of you, whilst acknowledging the wrongfulness of your criminal conduct. I was told that your parents do not know about your offending, but you intend to tell them in the near future. Your sister gave evidence that they would also be supportive of you. I was told that they were in their 60s and live in Sri Lanka. Each of your parents has some health difficulties. You are 26 years old, and whilst you still could be said to be a youthful offender, you are nearing the end of such a description and the benefits that might accompany this.
23 In your favour you pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, facilitating justice to a significant degree as you have saved the witnesses the time and trouble of giving evidence and you have saved the community the time and expense of contested proceedings. Further, although you sort to minimise your offending in some respects when interviewed by police, in other respects you were most co-operative and frank about what you had done and why you had done it. I accept that you are remorseful for your actions to the extent that you can be, having had a good deal of psychological counselling which has assisted you in expressing some victim empathy. I take into account the report of Dr Hussain, psychologist, dated 3 February 2015, although it is not entirely clear as to his diagnosis of you. He found that you have difficulty with impulsivity and self-regulation, he said that testing of you indicated a strong preference for adult and juvenile women which was contrary to your collection of child pornography.
24 He then said that you did not have trouble controlling your sexual impulses, that your resort to pornography seemed to be a method of self-soothe in the context of boredom. He said that your inability to manage your mood and negative affect may contribute to risk-taking behaviour without regard to long term consequences. He said this might be a factor in your current antisocial behaviour. He then said that child pornography possession was found to be a stronger indicator of paedophilic sexual arousal than a history of committing an actual contact offence against a child. However, it was not clear as to whether Dr Hussain was saying that you had paedophilic tendencies or not. In any event he said that you had developed some insight and victim empathy but that intervention through treatment was in its primary stages and you were in need of a good deal more in order to identify triggers and develop skills to manage your emotions more effectively.
25 I have received an updated report from Dr Hussain indicating that you have attended three further sessions, and I take into account that you have been counselled by him for a significant period now. I understand that you have abused alcohol and engaged in daily marijuana use in the past in a bid to relax or relieve boredom at times.
26 Like many who commit these sorts of offences, you have led a fairly isolated life since coming to Australia and you have only had one brief romantic relationship. However, I was told that you were then involved in a suburban cricket club which only engaged in competitions at adult level.
27 Dr Hussain said that you had difficulty with intimate relationships, and a lack of confidence when engaging with women. I was told that you became fascinated by child pornography after viewing adult pornography for a time. Your interest in especially young children and toddlers is especially concerning.
28 Dr Hussain said you fell within the high risk or needs range on the STABLE 2007 guidelines, which identifies typical or baseline functioning of sexual offenders within the past year and the next year. He identified the areas which were said to be clinically significant areas of concern for you. These are set out at paragraphs 28 and 29 of his report and I incorporate these into my sentencing remarks but I shall not repeat them. I also take into account the assessment by the Community Corrections officer in respect of your risk of reoffending, which was said to be low.
29 I accept that you are remorseful for your actions in so far as they have impacted on you, and that you are increasing your level of awareness and regret as to how your actions have impacted on others, but you still have a way to go.
30 In your favour, you have no prior convictions and no subsequent matters. You have strong family support and I accept that, but for this offending, you are of otherwise good character. In this regard, I've also taken into account the character references provided by your sister and brother-in-law. You now have steady employment in your chosen field, and you have strong family support and stable accommodation, although I observe that a number of these conditions existed when you chose to commit these offences. You are still somewhat immature, and it is to your credit that following this dreadful offending you have taken positive steps to rehabilitate, in the form of counselling and turning to your family and faith, all of which have assisted you thus far.
31 I accept that any period in gaol would be harder for you than for more seasoned prisoners, because it would be first time that you had been to gaol, and because of your relative immaturity.
32 In all of the circumstances, I am of the view that your prospects of rehabilitation are guardedly good. I say "guardedly" because it is not entirely clear as to any underlying pathology that you might have in view of the fact that you offended over a fairly lengthy period and it is still early days in respect of the intervention of treatment.
33 However you are a man of some intelligence, and appreciate that committing offences of the type that you have places you in a grave position in terms of going to gaol. Your employment, stable accommodation and family support stand you in good stead, and as I've said, you have no criminal history nor subsequent offending.
34 I place some weight on specific deterrence and protection of the community. However, as I have said, I must place significant weight on general deterrence, punishment and denunciation. The prosecution submits that you ought be sentenced to an immediate gaol term, and referred me to some cases in support of this submission.
35 Your counsel relies primarily on the recent decision of Boulton v R [2014] VSCA 342 which is a guideline judgment of five justices of our Court of Appeal in respect of the imposition of Community Corrections Orders. The Court of Appeal concluded that a Community Corrections Order could serve all of the purposes of punishment even in quite serious cases. The Court said that, "the challenge for sentencing courts in the early years of the Community Corrections Order regime will be to re-examine the conventional wisdom about the types of offending which ordinarily attract a term of imprisonment."[103]
36 It went on to say that it was essential to conduct such a re-examination, "if the Community Corrections Order was to fulfil its potential as a sentencing option in accordance with the legislature's clearly expressed intention." [103]
37 In a comparison between gaol and Community Corrections Orders the Court observed that imprisonment is often seriously detrimental to the prisoner, and hence for the community. The Court observed that programs such as the sex offender treatment program was rationed and was often unavailable to those serving short sentences. The Court also observed that the various aspects of prison life could well increase the chances of a prisoner re-offending upon being released. The Court said that the Community Corrections Order option dramatically changed the sentencing landscape, and it was now open to a sentencing court to choose a disposition enabling all of the purposes of punishment to be served simultaneously in a coherent and balanced way, in preference to imprisonment which was said to be skewed towards retribution and deterrence. The Court observed that such a disposition could also address general deterrence, but it was a sentencing judge's task, and that of the government, to effectively communicate to the community as to how a Community Corrections Order operates punitively in any particular case. The court said that there would be cases where, after engaging in the deliberation now required by s.5(4C) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (hereafter “The Act”), certain sentencing purposes such as just punishment, denunciation and/or deterrence could not be sufficiently served by Community Corrections Order, even with onerous conditions.
38 In the context of discussing the availability of combining a Community Corrections Order with a term of imprisonment, the Court said, "consistently with the principle of parsimony, the Court would then impose the shortest term of imprisonment consistent with the achievement of those purposes." [140] In support of this proposition, the Court cited DPP(C’th) v Zarb [2014] VSCA 347 a decision upon which the prosecution relies in your case.
39 In Zarb, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against the imposition of a Community Corrections Order in respect of one charge of using a carriage service to access child pornography and two charges of using a carriage service to transmit child pornography. The appeal was allowed by a majority decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal and the offender was resentenced to 3 months' imprisonment on Charge 1 and a Community Corrections Order of 2 years for Charges 2 and 3.
40 Their Honours, Priest and Neave JJA were two of the five justices in Boulton, which was delivered four days after Zarb was delivered. Zarb was heard in November 2014 and Boulton was heard in July or August 2014. Her Honour Justice Neave and His Honour Justice Kyrou JJA were in the majority in Zarb and upheld the appeal, with Priest JA giving a lengthy dissenting judgment.
41 On 5 December 2013, Mr Zarb had transmitted three images of child exploitation material to an undercover police officer. Two of these were Level 4 and one was at Level 1. His computer was seized by police and on it were found 310 images at Level 1, 15 images at Level 2, 20 images at Level 3, 57 images and one movie at Level 4, 11 images at level 5, and two images at level 6. These images had been downloaded over a 15 month period. Forensic analysis revealed that the respondent had searched for and downloaded child pornography using a file sharing program. They also discovered that on 7 August 2013, the respondent had transmitted image files and a movie file to two different recipients, sending to the first of these three Level 4 images, two Level 1 images and one Level 4 movie. The respondent sent four Level 4 images to the second recipient.
42 Mr Zarb was 47 years old when sentenced and had no prior convictions. He had a difficult childhood and began drinking when he was ten years old. He was then placed in the care of his older half-sister and her husband, and was brought up in a supportive loving household. The respondent in that case had a bachelor's degree and a responsible position at work, and had a loving family but returned to drinking and began using drugs. He had used a good deal of his superannuation program to fund a 90 day program to address his drug and alcohol problems. He was assessed by Mr Newton, psychologist, as being at moderate risk of reoffending.
43 In upholding the Director's appeal on the basis of manifest inadequacy, the majority in Zarb said that the gravity of the offences, the weight to be given to general and specific deterrence, and the need to denounce this type of offending were not adequately imposed by the learned sentencing judge. As a consequence, the individual sentence and total effective sentence fell outside the range which could be imposed in the reasonable exercise of a sentencing discretion. The respondent was resentenced to 3 months' imprisonment on Charge 1 and to a Community Corrections Order of two years in respect of Charges 2 and 3. It was said that the gaol term would serve to denounce his conduct and recognise the paramount importance of general deterrence but was a duration which would not significantly interrupt the rehabilitative work he was already undertaking.
44 The majority cited DPP (C’th) v Guest [2014] VSCA 29 where the Court of Appeal held that a Community Corrections Order of three years and six months was manifestly inadequate. In that case the respondent had been dealt with for one charge of accessing child pornography, one charge of transmitting child pornography and one charge of possessing child pornography. In that case there were more images than in Zarb but the offending occurred over a shorter period. In fact, the access charge involved 6,058 files. The transmission involved in excess of 6,000 transmissions of child pornography and the accused was in possession of 9,958 images, 217 video files and 54 text files. In Guest, His Honour Coghlan JA said, "I would add that in cases of this kind involving both the possession and transmission of significant quantities of child pornography, including some at high level, any non-custodial sentence would not normally be appropriate. A non-custodial disposition should only be contemplated in circumstances that can properly be said to be exceptional." [48]
45 In his dissenting judgment in Zarb, Appeal Justice Priest disagreed with this remark, but the majority did not, expressly, although they did not expressly refer to this aspect of the judgment either. In the circumstances, it is unclear as to whether a case ought be exceptional before- a case such as this ought be exceptional before a non-immediate term were imposed, especially in the wake of Boulton.
46 In Boulton, Zarb was cited after the following passage, "There will of course be cases where sentencing court concludes, after engaging in the deliberation they are required by s.5(4C), that certain sentencing purposes, typically just punishment, denunciation and/or deterrence, cannot be sufficiently served by the making of Community Corrections Orders, even with onerous conditions. Consistently with the principle of parsimony, the Court would then impose the shortest term of imprisonment consistent with those purposes." [140]
47 In the case before me the learned prosecutor accepted that, notwithstanding some of the offences you have committed are Commonwealth matters, the guideline judgment in Boulton also applies to Commonwealth offences. However, she pointed to the aspect of the judgment to which I have just referred in support of her submission that a term of immediate imprisonment was called for. I have borne firmly in mind that a sentence of imprisonment is a sentence of last resort when nothing else will adequately address the weight needed to be placed on relevant sentencing considerations. I have also borne in mind the matters set out in Boulton and the fact that the Court of five saw fit to expressly refer to Zarb, with apparent approval, in the course of their guideline judgment.
48 You have been assessed as suitable for a Community Corrections Order but the question for me is whether this alone will suffice to address all relevant sentencing principles. In the end I have reached the view, after a good deal of angst, that in all the circumstances in your case and in view of recent cases to which I have just referred, a period of immediate imprisonment is warranted in respect of the Commonwealth offences. But I also intend to impose a Community Corrections Order in respect of the State offence, which must be completed by you.
49 Would you please stand up?
50 In respect of each of the charges, you are convicted. By reason of your convictions for these offences you are to be recorded as a registrable offender for life. You must report your personal details to the Chief Commissioner of Police annually for the rest of your life. You must first report these details within seven days after your release from custody. Details in writing of these reporting conditions will be served upon you shortly by my associate, and I will ask your counsel to attend to an acknowledgement of that notice and have you sign it.
51 In respect of Charge 1, I sentence you to 9 months' imprisonment, which is to commence today.
52 In respect of Charge 2, I sentence you to 16 months' imprisonment, to commence 3 months after the commencement of the sentence imposed in respect of Charge 1.
53 As I have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment in respect of Charges 1 and 2 you are to be declared a serious sexual offender which will be noted in the records of the court. If you were to commit a relevant offence or offences in the future, and a gaol term was imposed, there would be a presumption that further gaol terms would served cumulatively with each other.
54 The effective total of the gaol term that I have imposed is 19 months’ imprisonment, but I direct that you be released after four months’ gaol upon you entering into a recognisance of the sum of $2,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of five years. I have imposed this sentence because of the seriousness of the offences and the weight that I must give to all relevant sentencing factors, but I have allowed for your release in 4 months in view of the mitigating matters in your case, including your personal circumstances, and because I want you to undertake a Community Corrections Ordering respect of the State charge, so as to be supervised and continue on a treatment and rehabilitation regime.
55 If you commit a further offence in breach of the recognisance to be of good behaviour in the next five years, then unless you can show a reasonable excuse for committing a further offence or offences you will have to pay $2000 and serve 15 months' imprisonment immediately. I should also tell you that you, or an authorised person, may apply to the court to vary or discharge the recognisance in accordance with s.20AA of the Commonwealth Crimes Act (1914).
56 In respect of Charge 3, I intend to impose a Community Corrections Order for a period of 2 years, but I can only do so with your consent.
57 The following conditions will be attached to that order. The mandatory terms that apply to all Community Corrections Order are you must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time that the order is in force. You must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by Regulation 17 of the Sentencing Regulations (2011). You must report to and receive visits from the Secretary to the Department of Justice, or his or her delegate. You must report to the Dandenong Community Correctional Services before 4 pm within two clear working days of your release from gaol. You must let a Community Corrections Officer within two clear working days of your changing your address or job. You must not leave Victoria without first obtaining permission to do so from the Secretary to the Department of Justice, or his or her delegate. You must obey all lawful instructions from and directions from the Secretary to the Department of Justice, or his or her delegate.
58 The conditions that apply in addition to the mandatory terms listed are you must be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer for a period of two years upon your release from gaol. You must undergo assessment and treatment including testing for drug and/or alcohol abuse or dependency as directed by the regional manager. You must undergo mental health assessment and treatment including, but not limited to, mental health, psychological, neuropsychological and psychiatric treatment in a hospital or residential facility, as directed by the regional manager.
59 In this respect, it would be most desirable for you to continue with Dr Hussain upon your release from gaol. You must undergo programs or courses including the Sex Offenders Program, which are aimed at addressing factors relating to the offending, as directed by the regional manager. Do you consent to the terms and conditions of the proposed Community Corrections Order?
60 OFFENDER: Yes.
61 HER HONOUR: I should tell you that if you do not comply with all the requirements of this order, then you will face brief proceedings before me. You will be sentenced in relation to the breach, and you will be resentenced in relation to the charges, in which case you may well be sentenced to a further period in gaol.
62 I would regard a breach of the Community Corrections Order as a most serious matter, whether it be because of further offending or because of non-compliance with any of the other conditions of the order. Do you understand that?
63 OFFENDER: Yes.
64 HER HONOUR: Do you maintain your consent to the Community Corrections Order?
65 OFFENDER: Yes.
66 HER HONOUR: Therefore, in relation to Charge 3, you are sentenced to a Community Corrections Order in the terms and conditions that I have just set out. I'll ask that your counsel approach you in the dock to assist you with the signing of the various documents in this case, being the sex offenders registration, the recognisance order, and the Community Corrections Order. You might assist, Mr Bram, please.
67 (Community Corrections Order signed and acknowledged.)
68 MS MCGILLIVRAY: Does Your Honour require me to complete the recognisance release order, or has your Associate done it?
69 HER HONOUR: I've actually had my Associate do that.
70 MS MCGILLIVRAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
71 HER HONOUR: Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I indicate, if not for your pleas of guilty in this matter, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 4 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 32 months. Is there anything further, counsel?
72 MS MCGILLIVRAY: Just for completeness, Your Honour, if Your Honour could confirm that there's no pre-sentence detention applicable.
73 HER HONOUR: Yes, there's no pre-sentence detention to be declared. Anything else?
74 MS MCGILLIVRAY: No, Your Honour.
75 HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. You can remove the prisoner, thank you. We now adjourn.
76 OFFENDER REMOVED
- - -
0
2
0