DPP v Chounlamountry
[2016] VSC 509
•26 August 2016
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2014 0180
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| VATTHANA CHOUNLAMOUNTRY |
---
JUDGE: | JANE DIXON J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATES OF HEARING: | 31 August - 23 September 2015, 2 June & 9 June 2016 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 August 2016 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Chounlamountry |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VSC 509 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Jury verdict – Acquitted of common law murder – Convicted of statutory murder – Fatal stabbing during armed robbery at home of deceased – Jury verdict consistent with lack of specific intent at the time of infliction of fatal wound – Offers to plead guilty to statutory murder rejected – Sentence of 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 13 years and 6 months – Crimes Act 1958 s 3A
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Crown | Ms M Williams QC with Ms M Stylianou | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr G Georgiou SC with Ms C Lynch | Tait Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Vatthana Chounlamountry, you have been found guilty by a jury of murder pursuant to s 3A of the Crimes Act 1953 (Vic), an offence known in Victoria as ‘statutory murder’.
Murder, including statutory murder, carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.[1]
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 3.
On 6 May 2014, at a house in St Albans, you caused the death of Thanh Phong Nguyen (‘the deceased’ or ‘Phong’) in the course of committing an armed robbery.
He was 23 years old at the time of his death and was a married man with two young children.
The deceased conducted a drug trafficking operation from the games room of the house. You had been introduced to the deceased by your partner, Stephanie Lam, who had known him and his family since childhood.
The pair of you were regular visitors to the deceased’s house for the purpose of purchasing crystal methamphetamine, also known as ice.[2]
[2]Police record of interview on 11 May 2014 (‘ROI’) (Prosecution Exhibit 11 at trial): You told police you had been to the house to purchase ice every day for the last three weeks and sometimes twice a day (Q&A 255), and that Phong had warned you to cut down (Q&A 199).
In the months leading up to the murder, your drug use had escalated, and you and your partner were becoming increasingly desperate to satisfy your cravings for drugs.
You were living a chaotic existence and had the day-to-day care of your two small children—Zhao, aged 4, and Violet, only 8 months old at the time.
You had lost your job and had no savings. Your payments from Centrelink were insufficient to meet the daily needs of your family whilst also feeding your drug dependency.
You had a long history of heroin addiction, but, in February 2014, you began using ice in an effort to cope with the demands of parenting. However, you discovered that ice caused you to feel on edge and paranoid and made you more aggressive.[3]
[3]ROI Q&A 197: ‘Because I’m totally different when I use ice. Everyone’s been telling me I’ve been acting different lately and just more schizo, and more aggro, and more violent, and that’s not me at all, no. ROI Q&A 241: ‘… I was just so paranoid on the drugs and just thinking someone’s after me and someone’s gunna come get me.‘
You decided that you needed to escape the drug-using lifestyle by moving your young family to New South Wales, where you hoped to have the support of your mother and brother.[4]
[4]ROI Q&A 195.
You needed money to undertake the move and decided that you would have to rob someone. You thought that the least risky option available was to rob Phong, your drug dealer, reasoning that he would not report the robbery to the police and risk the discovery of his drug trafficking activities.[5]
[5]ROI Q&A 266.
You were familiar with the layout of Phong’s house. You had seen him handle large quantities of cash and drugs in the games room of the house.[6] However, you also knew that he was married and had two small children of his own, and that his mother, stepfather and siblings usually resided at the house with him.
[6]Indeed, $43,300 in cash was found amongst the deceased’s belongings by police after the murder. Ice pipes and accoutrements of the drug trade were also located at the premises.
Crucially, you also knew that Phong was likely to react violently to a threatened robbery, because he had previously told you that he would kill anyone who came to rob him.[7]
[7]ROI Q&A 210: ‘And we’ve told him … anyone can come and see you, or rob you … and he said, “… Let ‘em come … I don’t care. I’ll kill anyone. …” … And so that’s why I knew … that night it was either me or him ‘cause that’s exactly what we … spoke about the other day. If anyone comes to rob him he’s gunna kill ‘em.’
But you decided to rob him anyway. Your rationalisation for this decision belies the distorted thinking of a drug addict.
On the night of 5 May 2014, you left your children with your partner’s mother. In the early hours of the morning on 6 May 2014, your partner exchanged text messages with Phong on the pretext of going to his premises with you to purchase ice.
At 4.30 am, your partner drove you to Phong’s house and waited in the car while you went inside.
You entered through the unlocked rear door as you usually did.[8] However, on this occasion, prior to entering the house, you donned gloves and armed yourself with a large knife.
[8]ROI Q&A 199: ‘... He didn’t answer his phone calls until about that 2.30 mark. He got up and he said, “What do you guys want?” and I just wanted to - because every night we’ve been going there getting ice off him, and it’s been around that time. So he always lets us in because we go through the back.’
You knew that Phong would be in the games room waiting to sell you ice. You entered the games room, closed the door and presented the knife to Phong with the intention of robbing him of his money and drugs.
You had hoped that Phong would be caught off-guard and not put up a fight.[9] But as soon as he saw you with the knife, Phong jumped up to resist you.
[9]Transcript of Trial, DPP v Chounlamountry (Supreme Court of Victoria, S CR 2014 0180, Jane Dixon J, 14 September 2015) (‘Trial Transcript’) 743.
You later told police that Phong had jumped out of the chair and wrestled with you. You said that he had grabbed your wrists trying to take the knife from you, and that as you overpowered him, you managed to stab him once so that he fell back in the chair whilst holding onto himself and calling out your name.
During your trial, you gave a somewhat more elaborate account of what had happened in that room. You said that you had not intended to stab Phong in the initial stages of the struggle.[10] You said that Phong had pulled you down on top of him, and that you had only realised that Phong had been stabbed when you saw the blade coming out of his chest as you got to your feet.[11]
[10]Trial Transcript 742-3; ROI Q&A 202.
[11]Trial Transcript 743.
You said that Phong was kicking out, calling out for help. At that point, afraid that Phong’s screams would awaken his family, you ‘panicked’ and stabbed him in the neck, and then continued to stab him several more times.
In all, the pathologist found nine knife wounds to the deceased’s left arm, chest, neck and back.[12]
[12]Trial Transcript 562-628 (Dr Bouwer).
After stabbing the deceased, you stole a ‘Nike’ shoebox which you had seen before and which you knew contained heroin and ice.[13]
[13]Trial Transcript 747.
The disturbance in the games room caused Thi Tien Nguyen, the deceased’s mother, to investigate.
She looked in the doorway and saw her son lying injured on the floor and you, still in the room, holding the knife and the shoebox. She called out to other family members, who then got out of bed and came towards the kitchen and back room of the house.
Waving the knife at the gathering family and yelling out in warning, you escaped quickly out through the back door and fled to the waiting car, whereupon you were driven away at speed by your partner.
You dropped the knife scabbard on the nature strip as you fled.
You were in no doubt that you had killed Phong and told your partner that Phong was dead as she drove you away from the house.[14]
[14]ROI Q&A 203; Trial Transcript 749.
Phong’s family drove him to the nearby hospital emergency department for treatment, but urgent resuscitation failed to save his life. He was pronounced dead at 5.27 am.
The cause of death was three stab wounds to the chest which, individually or in combination, led to significant blood loss and cardiovascular collapse.[15]
[15]Trial Transcript 605 (Dr Bouwer).
After fleeing the scene together with your partner, you collected your children and went into hiding from police. You disposed of the murder weapon and over the ensuing days decided to abandon the car used in the crime in order to avoid detection.
After escaping the premises, you began to use the heroin and ice contained in the shoebox.
On 9 May 2014, you became aware that police had surrounded the motel in Footscray where you were in hiding with your partner and the children. You released your two children to police and then, together with your partner, attempted suicide by drug ingestion. Police gained entry and an ambulance took you to Footscray Hospital to be treated for the drug overdose.
You were not cleared for police interview until 11 May 2014. On that date, you co-operated with a lengthy police interview.
You made substantial admissions and conceded that you knew that the deceased would not have given up his money without a fight.
You told police and testified to the jury, ‘It was either me or him.’[16] But this explanation does not account for your actions in continuing to viciously attack Phong when he was already incapacitated by the first injury.
[16]ROI Q&A 208 and 209; Trial Transcript 745.
You were charged and remanded in custody and have remained on remand ever since.
The tragic consequences of your crime have left Phong‘s widow without the support of a husband and father to assist her in rearing their two children. His mother has been deprived of a beloved son.
Victim impact statements were received from Huong Thi Nguyen, widow of the deceased, and Thi Tien Nguyen, mother of the deceased.[17]
[17]Prosecution Exhibit 2 on the plea.
Huong Thi Nguyen said that she feels very sad and lost since her husband was killed and worries about her children and their future.
Thi Tien Nguyen said that she misses her son and cries almost every day. She is reminded of his passing when she looks at her grandchildren and she worries about their welfare without a father. She also spoke of the loss suffered by Phong’s siblings.
It is very clear that all of Phong‘s family grieve his untimely death. Their pain and loss will continue through the years ahead as the two children grow up without their father and Phong‘s mother and widow must manage without his help.
You were arraigned before a jury on one count of common law murder and one count of statutory murder.
Prior to the committal hearing, you offered in writing through your legal advisers to plead guilty to statutory murder. You repeated the written offer prior to trial.[18] Your offers were based on a factual summary consistent with the statutory murder charge and which aligned with your police record of interview. The Crown rejected your offers.
[18]You made the first offer on 7 November 2014 and the second offer on 25 June 2015: Transcript of Plea, DPP v Chounlamountry (Supreme Court of Victoria, S CR 2014 0180, Jane Dixon J, 9 June 2016) (‘Plea Transcript) 20-1; Defence outline of plea submissions [2.2].
Ultimately, the jury acquitted you of common law murder and found you guilty of statutory murder. Since your conviction reflects your plea offer, you are entitled to the discount that I would have accorded had your offer been accepted.[19]
[19]R v Heaney [1992] VR 531, 558 ; R v Ramage [2004] VSC 391 [44].
The Crown submitted that any benefit for remorse as a result of the offer to plead guilty to statutory murder should only encompass utilitarian factors.[20]
[20]Plea Transcript 10; Crown submissions on plea hearing [13.4] (Prosecution Exhibit 1 on the plea).
Conversely, it was submitted on your behalf that you have exhibited remorse for your criminal actions in a number of ways. As well as your offer to plead guilty to statutory murder, your counsel also submitted that the extensive admissions in your police interview showed your shame for your actions.[21]
[21]Plea Transcript 74-5; ROI Q&A 301: ‘It saddens me. … It’s not right that – it doesn’t matter what he does … no-one’s life should be taken from them. Now, his family has to go without him … And so I can only say sorry so many times but I don’t think they will accept it, but I am sorry …’
You also expressed sorrow for your actions to your partner prior to the trial.[22] After you were convicted, in your consultation with a psychologist, Dr Barth, you again expressed remorse for what you did, and the effect on the victims of your crime.[23]
[22]Defence outline of plea submissions [2.4].
[23]Dr Mathew Barth, ‘Psychological Assessment of Mr Vatthana Chounlamounty’ (10 December 2015) [29]-[30] (Defence Exhibit 1 on the plea).
In my view, there is evidence of remorse beyond the utilitarian offer to plead guilty to the charge of which you stand convicted. I accept that the expressions of contrition made to police, your partner and Dr Barth, and my observations of your demeanour in court during your trial, are indicative of a degree of remorse and shame.
Nevertheless, you are yet to accept full responsibility for your past decisions, particularly those driven by or performed under the influence of drugs. In his report, Dr Barth opined that you are in the very early phases of addressing your drug addiction and that your rehabilitation is at a very formative level.
It is reasonable to assume that your decision to plead guilty to statutory murder and the Crown’s decision to reject your offers were made in consideration of the prevailing jurisprudence in Victoria on statutory murder and concomitant sentencing practices. At that time, statutory murder tended to be treated as an ‘inherently less serious form of murder’,[24] on the basis that the killing was unintentional. Sentencing ranges for statutory murder, therefore, tended to be lower than for common law murder.[25]
[24]See discussion in DPP v Perry [2016] VSCA 152.
[25]Ibid [118].
In the recent judgment of DPP v Perry (‘Perry’),[26] which was published after the hearing of your plea,[27] the Court of Appeal held that ‘statutory murder is not to be viewed as inherently less serious than common law murder, or as having a “lower” starting point” for sentencing.’[28]
[26][2016] VSCA 152.
[27]The parties were aware of the pending judgment of Perry and were invited to make further submissions after the decision was handed down by the Court of Appeal but declined to do so.
[28]DPP v Perry [2016] VSCA 152 [83].
The Court stated:
For liability under s 3A, it must be proved—or admitted—that the ‘act of violence’ which caused the death was conscious, voluntary and deliberate. It is a separate question—relevant only to sentence—whether, in committing the act of violence (which can include an act of intimidation or menace), the offender intended to cause harm to the victim.
Thus, the offence of statutory murder covers the full range of conduct, from the case where the death is an accidental result of the act of violence to the case where the death is the intended result of that act. On ordinary sentencing principles, it will be relevant to the Court’s assessment of the gravity of the offence, and of the offender’s culpability, to consider where within that range the conduct is proved to fall.[29]
[29]Ibid [46]-[47].
The Court went on to say:
The Court’s assessment of the gravity of the particular offence under s 3A, and of the offender’s culpability, will depend—as for any other offending—on the objective and subjective circumstances of the case. The seriousness of any particular statutory murder is to be assessed according to the nature of the act(s) of the offender which caused the death of the victim. A particular instance of statutory murder may therefore be more serious than some instances of common law murder.[30]
[30]Ibid [82].
The jury verdict convicting you of statutory murder means that the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to all of the elements of statutory murder.
The Crown relied on armed robbery as the foundational offence for the charge of statutory murder, and no issue was taken by your counsel that you were in the course of committing an armed robbery when the deceased was killed.
Your evidence to the jury, consistent with your police interview, was that you had hoped to achieve your aim of robbing the deceased without resorting to stabbing him.
But you acknowledged that you had brandished the knife for the purpose of armed robbery, and that it was in response to that action that the deceased jumped up to resist you. This then triggered the violent events that followed which led to Phong’s death.
The Crown had invited the jury to convict you of common law murder and argued that you had intended to kill or cause really serious injury to the deceased at the time the fatal stab wound or wounds were delivered.
Your counsel had argued before the jury that it was reasonably possible that the first knife wound was inflicted to the deceased’s chest during the initial struggle, and that it alone may have caused the death of the deceased. He had argued that reasonable doubt existed as to whether that first knife wound was caused deliberately and whether it was delivered with the intent for murder.
It may be accepted that the jury were influenced by this argument in deciding to acquit you of common law murder and that they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the intent required for common law murder was contemporaneous with the specific act that caused death.
The jury had been directed that statutory murder was not to be treated as a less serious form of murder when considering the alternative verdicts open to them.[31] The jury had also been directed that, in the case of statutory murder, the Crown did not have to establish murderous intent beyond reasonable doubt, nor did the Crown have to prove that the killing was unintentional.[32]
[31]Trial Transcript 1215.
[32]Trial Transcript 1324.
At the plea hearing, the Crown properly conceded that I could infer from the jury verdict acquitting you of common law murder that the jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you had intended to kill or cause really serious injury at the time you caused the fatal wound.[33]
[33]Plea Transcript 3.
Giving you the benefit of the jury verdict and, consistently with the reasonable possibility that the first stab wound was not deliberate or committed with murderous intent because the knife penetrated the deceased’s chest in a sudden physical encounter, I am still obliged to look at your conduct as a whole to assess the gravity of your offence.
You stabbed the deceased repeatedly after the first knife injury and at least two of those knife wounds had the potential to be fatal.
You then left him for dead and yelled at his family to keep away before running off with the ‘Nike’ shoebox.
The multiplicity of stab wounds and the nature of the weapon you took with you to rob the deceased are relevant considerations. Also, the preparation for the robbery which involved at least some degree of forethought, including some awareness that things might not go to plan.
The objective gravity of your crime is aggravated by the fact that it was committed in a house where children and family members lived, although of course in this case the family home was also being used for trafficking drugs.
The evidence reveals that both you and the deceased had been ingesting illicit drugs prior to the murder.[34] You testified that you had used ice with your partner in the hours beforehand.
[34]You testified that you had used ice with your partner in the hours beforehand: Trial Transcript 734.
Your life was spiralling out of control due to your ice habit. You told your partner as you were leaving to rob Phong that this would be your last time using ice, and you said that she had agreed to your plan because she wanted the ‘real you’ back, meaning the person who was not going to be using ice anymore.[35] This was, of course, a false hope.
[35]ROI Q&A 196.
Drug addiction or drug ingestion at the time of your offence does not mitigate your moral culpability,[36] although it is a relevant contextual circumstance in this case. You had some awareness of the effect of ice on you and had made little effort to conquer your addiction in the months leading up to May 2014.[37]
[36]See R v Copeland [2014] VSC 39 [61] (Maxwell P).
[37]However, you had only commenced using ice relatively recently, whereas your long term drug of choice had been heroin: Dr Barth, above n 23. I was not invited to treat your ingestion of ice as a circumstance of aggravation.
Nevertheless, an assessment of the objective gravity of your offence and your moral culpability must balance all of the factors referred to above and also give you the benefit of the acquittal on the charge of common law murder.
Turning to your personal history, you are now 32 years of age. You were born to Laotian-born parents who were then living in Wollongong. They had arrived in Australia not long before your birth with little English language abilities.
You had an unstable and disrupted upbringing. Your parents separated soon after you were born and, initially, your father kept custody of you and your two older brothers. However, he went on to form a new family and abandoned his first family, providing negligible support to your mother.
Your mother was forced to provide for her three sons by sewing clothes from home and working very long hours.
Your eldest brother began to get in trouble with the law and you also followed that path.
You failed to achieve basic literacy prior to leaving school and began to truant, failed Year 8 and dropped out. You began to mix with negative influences outside the home and you were using heroin by the age of 15 and committing crimes to finance your drug use.
You started coming to the notice of police in New South Wales as an adolescent and you have a significant criminal history. You have prior convictions for anti-social crime in keeping with your long-term substance abuse, although you have limited prior convictions for violence.[38]
[38]You do, however, have a prior conviction for an armed robbery committed in New South Wales at the age of 19.
You formed a relationship with Ms Lam in Sydney when she holidayed there in 2009, and you moved to Victoria to be with her.
You had some periods where you were able to reduce your drug dependence. For the first time, between September 2013 and March 2014, you managed to obtain some valued employment in furniture making. You wanted to turn over a new leaf. Unfortunately, this was not sustained.
A psychological report prepared by Dr Mathew Barth sets out the nature of the obstacles you faced in early 2014.[39] The report explains that your own life experience left you unprepared for the demands of family life. Overcoming long-term substance abuse of the kind you had experienced required intensive support. You acknowledged to Dr Barth your deep seated feelings of abandonment and isolation from society. You were deprived of social and educational opportunities in your formative years due to your difficult home life and the periods spent in and out of custody.
[39]Dr Barth, above n 23.
Dr Barth commented on your low self-esteem and depression and diagnosed an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. This was partly reactive to your current circumstances. He also commented on your long-term extensive drug abuse which along with your disturbed personal history led him to some additional diagnoses.[40]
[40]Opioid use disorder, stimulant use disorder and antisocial personality disorder: Ibid [43].
Whilst the fifth and sixth Verdins[41] factors were raised for consideration by your counsel, I do not think that your mental health circumstances raise Verdins considerations to any significant degree,[42] but I do accept that your personal history has been marked by disadvantage and a severe and entrenched pattern of drug addiction which commenced in your adolescence.
[41]R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.
[42]DPP v O'Neill [2015] VSCA 325 [94].
I also accept that there are a range of factors which will make prison especially burdensome for you.[43]
[43]Plea Transcript 41-2.
It is to your credit that, according to Dr Barth, you do recognise the importance of gaining psychological, educational and social assistance during the inevitable lengthy prison sentence that will be imposed.[44]
[44]Dr Barth, above n 23 [44]-[45].
You have already been on remand for a substantial period of time and I take into account the disrupted nature of your remand circumstances, during which you have experienced frequent moves between different correctional facilities and within those facilities.[45]
[45]Comprehensive Prison History from Corrections Victoria (contained in Prosecution Exhibit 1 on plea).
I recognise that your prospects for accessing work and educational programs and for a more stable custodial existence will probably only solidify once your status changes from that of a remand prisoner. I also take into account the delay of over two years in finalising your trial and sentence, a delay which could have been avoided if your early plea offer had been accepted.[46]
[46]I note, however, that you have also been on remand for another matter which has not concluded.
It is to your credit that despite constant prisoner movements you have managed to participate in a number of courses and counselling appointments on remand.[47]
[47]12-hour Indo-Chinese Substance Use program, 12-hour Indo-Chinese Relapse Prevention program, 3 individual counselling sessions through Uniting Care ReGen: Defence Exhibit 4 on the plea; 10 sessions of individual psychological counselling at MAP focusing on substance abuse and offending: Defence Exhibit 3 on the plea; a textiles and footwear certification with Kangan Institute and a cleaning certification with Kangan Institute: Defence Exhibit 5 on the plea.
You have also been placed on the methadone programme and have participated in random urine screens which have largely been satisfactory.[48]
[48]Drug screening reports (Defence Exhibit 2 on plea).
Your counsel referred to some positive indications as to how you are spending your time in prison and it is to be hoped that you are able to harness educational and developmental opportunities so that you can mend your ways once you are released.[49]
[49]I was told that you are improving your literacy in prison and now enjoy reading: Plea Transcript 25.
There are some promising features in your current presentation and you are still young enough to change your outlook in the future.[50]
[50]Dr Barth referred to your willingness to change: Above n 23 [46].
Your mother and one of your older brothers have shown their willingness to stand by you in the future.
Your previous relationship with Ms Lam was marred by the fact that you were both heavy drug users leading up to the murder, and the relationship foundered after the conclusion of your trial. She lost custody of the children, who are now cared for by her mother.
Ms Lam’s mother has visited you in prison with your two young children on one occasion since your arrest, but your current location makes regular visitations too difficult. She facilitates phone calls with the children instead.
Your sentence will involve hardship because your mother and brother live in New South Wales and your children live in Victoria.
In assessing the objective gravity of your offence and your moral culpability, the argument about whether the act which caused death was intentional or deliberate focused on the first stabbing injury and, in that regard, I am bound by the jury verdict acquitting you of common law murder.[51] I also pay some regard to your explanation for turning to violence, that you feared losing control of the knife to the deceased.
[51]I am not at liberty to attribute intentionality to the fatal act (see discussion in Perry, particularly at [48(dd)]) in light of the way the trial was conducted and the jury verdict.
I must also give weight to your actions which followed on from the first stabbing injury, as well as the nature and execution of the foundational offence. Your decision to steal from the deceased after stabbing him repeatedly reveals a level of callousness that demonstrates why statutory murder is capable of being treated as a very serious form of murder.
General deterrence must assume significant weight in the sentence I impose, especially where the foundational offence triggering the statutory murder was an armed robbery. Denunciation and just punishment are also important. Specific deterrence and community protection require moderate consideration because of your prior history and personality profile. I must also impose a sentence which recognises the principle of parsimony.
On the other hand, I should also consider your prospects of reclamation through such measures as may be offered to you whilst you serve your sentence, and in doing so I take into account the positive signs already present.
Given your age and your current willingness to cooperate with treatment programs as well as the length of the sentence I must impose, it is important that your sentence does allow for rehabilitation and encourage you to overcome your past substance abuse and criminal offending.
Finally, I observe that it was your choice to resort to violent crime, aware of the risks involved, and you must now be punished for that decision.
In balancing the seriousness of your conduct, the nature of your crime and factors personal to you, and weighing all the matters already discussed, the sentence I impose must clearly denounce the needless taking of the life of Thanh Phong Nguyen.
Vatthana Chounlamounty, on the charge of murder, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 17 years and 6 months. I fix a period of 13 years and 6 months before you are eligible for parole.
I declare that, excluding today, you have served 839 days of pre-sentence detention.
---
6
0