DPP v Nenna (a pseudonym)
[2019] VCC 1512
•13 September 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised (Not) Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JAMES NENNA (a pseudonym) |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 15-19, 23-25 July (trial), 3 September 2019 (plea) | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 13 September 2019 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Nenna (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1512 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords: Sentence – indecent act with a child under the age of 16 – incest – father with sole parental responsibility – context of persistent sexual, physical and emotional abuse – victim punished and sexually assaulted for disclosure – multiple pregnancies – serious sexual offender – sex offender registration
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr A. McKenry | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Pearson (for trial and plea) Mr D. Care (on sentence) | James Dowsley & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1 James Nenna,[1] you have been convicted by a jury of all four charges of serious sexual offending against your daughter on which you were arraigned. That is, three charges of incest and one of an indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16. You are, as your counsel, Mr Pearson, correctly submitted, to be sentenced for the four specific acts of which you were found guilty. However, to properly understand and assess their gravity, they must be considered in the context in which they occurred.
[1]James Nenna is a pseudonym.
2 The central issue in your trial was the credibility of your daughter Beatrice[2] in respect of the four charged acts and more generally. By its verdicts, the jury accepted her, on those four charges, as a witness of truth whose evidence was of such quality as to satisfy it of your guilt in respect of the charges. At trial, the prosecution led, without objection, evidence of persistent sexual abuse of Beatrice from the time that she was nine years old until she left home, that is, when she was ejected by you from the family home when she was 18 or 19 years of age. That evidence was relied on by the prosecution to support an argument that you had a sexual interest in Beatrice and a willingness to act upon it, by engaging in sexual acts with her. It also led, again without objection, evidence of a persistent pattern of concurrent physical and emotional abuse. Your response to the evidence of the charged acts and of the other misconduct was that it did not happen and that the evidence of the charged acts and of the other misconduct was fabricated to bolster Beatrice’s account of the charged acts.
[2]Beatrice Nenna is a pseudonym.
3 By its verdicts, the jury rejected your denial of the four charges, that is, the jury was not left with a reasonable doubt about the truthfulness and reliability of Beatrice in respect of the charges. Having regard to the manner in which the evidence of the other misconduct was relied on by the prosecution, that is, as making it more likely the four acts the subject of the charges occurred as Beatrice said they did, and the manner in which that other misconduct evidence was challenged by the defence, it follows from the jury verdicts that Beatrice’s evidence in respect of the four charges was not undermined by your challenge to her credibility in respect of the other misconduct allegations.
4 For the purposes of sentence therefore, in my view, it is consistent with the jury’s verdicts to sentence you on the basis that the jury did not reject the other misconduct evidence and I accept it for sentencing purposes. I therefore take into account Beatrice’s evidence of the other misconduct as providing credible evidence of the context in which the four charged acts of which the jury found you guilty were committed.
Circumstances of offending.
5 Turning then to the circumstance of the offending which reflect the jury verdict. You were born in Africa. By the time Beatrice, your oldest child, was born, your country had been ravaged by civil war for a considerable time. Your relationship with Beatrice’s mother appeared to have been of short duration and it would appear that you did not know what had happened to her or even whether she was still alive after your separation. Beatrice was placed in the care of various relatives until, at the age of seven, you assumed care of her.
6 By then you were in a relationship with a woman who Beatrice came to love and call Mummy. It was after this woman left the home and went to America that, according to Beatrice, you began to touch and then sexually penetrate her. She was then about nine. You did so, Beatrice swore, frequently, becoming more emboldened and violent as time went on. You did not use a condom or take any steps to protect her from sexually transmitted disease or pregnancy.
7 You and Beatrice arrived in Australia in March 2008, when she was 15. It would appear that you were sponsored by at least one, if not two, women, sisters you had met in a refugee camp in Africa. Each woman had had a child by you whilst you were in Africa. On arrival, you lived with Linda Sefu,[3] one of the women.
[3] Linda Sefu is a pseudonym.
8 Within a week of your arrival, you asked Linda to take your daughter for a pregnancy test. The test confirmed that she was pregnant. On the basis of Beatrice’s evidence and the jury verdicts accepting her as a witness of truth, it was you who had made her pregnant and only you who could have. You, however, falsely asserted that she had shamed and betrayed you and your family by having had a sexual relationship with a boy she had met in a camp before leaving Africa. You abused her in front of Linda for having brought dishonour to the family. You claimed that you had found emails from the boy apologising for the consequences of his behaviour to your family. You then privately apologised to Beatrice for your abuse, telling her that you had to do it as you did not want Linda to know that you were responsible for the pregnancy. Beatrice nonetheless confided in Linda and told her that you had been having sex with her since she was a child and were responsible for the pregnancy.
9 You arranged for Beatrice to have the pregnancy terminated. You and Linda accompanied her to the clinic and to her consultations with the medical staff there. You told a false story in her presence about who was responsible for the pregnancy and Beatrice did not contradict you.
10 Not long after the termination, you discovered that Beatrice had told Linda that you had been sexually abusing her and were responsible for the pregnancy. You discovered that Linda in turn had told other family members and members of the community. You were enraged. You confronted Beatrice one day when she came home from school and berated her for telling Linda and traducing your reputation within the family and the community. A measure of the power that you had over her is that she, poor child that she then was, apologised to you for telling the truth and promised that she would not tell anyone again what you had been doing to her. You then said that, as she had told Linda that you had raped her, you would rape her for real. You exposed your erect penis, grabbed her and pulled down her underwear. She struggled, resisted and tried to run away. You chased her and she fell, hurting her ankle and, so, rendered unable to escape. You dragged her away from where she fell but did not then proceed to rape her, as you had threatened. It is that conduct, the exposing of your penis in the context of a threat to rape Beatrice for telling Linda that you had been sexually abusing her since she was a child in Africa and had been responsible for the pregnancy, which constitutes Charge 1, the charge of indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16, of which you were found guilty.
11 At trial, Beatrice, when describing this incident, said that, in the course of the attack, she had felt your penis and it was hard. A vigorous challenge to her credibility was mounted on the basis that she had not previously referred to feeling or having touched your penis. On the plea, Mr Pearson submitted that I should not take into account, as a sentencing fact, that there was actual penile contact. First, because I should not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it had occurred, and second, because to do so would amount to sentencing for a more serious offence than that charged.
12 So far as the first reason is concerned, I accept Beatrice’s explanation for not previously mentioning this detail as plausible, not only because she was a credible witness, but it is also consistent with the research about the manner in which victims of long-term childhood sexual abuse reveal details of the abuse. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was actual physical contact with your exposed penis in the course of the attack. Given that the jury was satisfied of your guilt on Charge 1, Beatrice’s credibility in respect of it was clearly not undermined by the fact that she had not previously included that detail when asked to give an account of it.
13 So far as the second basis for Mr Pearson's submission that I should not take it into account as a sentencing fact is concerned, I am, as I have already said, mindful that I must sentence for the offences of which you have been found guilty and nothing else. Charge 1 is an offence of indecent act, not one of attempted rape, or any other offence. Mr Pearson submitted that, had there been a touching alleged in the course of the indecent act, that would have constituted a charge of indecent assault not one of indecent act. That is not correct. The offence of indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16 (the offence charged here) replaced the offences of indecent assault of a person under 16 and gross indecency from 5 August 1991, that is well before 2008, the date of this offence. The offence of indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16 remained an offence until it was in turn replaced with the offence of sexual assault of a child under 16 from 1 July 2017.
14 So, regardless of whether your penis was simply exposed or whether there was actual physical contact between your penis and your daughter in the course of the attack and the threat that you were making to rape her, it would still constitute a charge of indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16.
15 As I said to Mr Pearson in the course of the plea, it was my preliminary view that the serious aggravating circumstances of the offence were the threat to rape Beatrice as a punishment for disclosing your sexual abuse of her and for disclosing that you were the person responsible for her pregnancy and the evidence of the surrounding circumstances, namely exposing your penis, grabbing her and pulling down her pants, ignoring her pleas not to rape her, chasing her as she tried to escape and dragging her back to the living room from the kitchen after she had fallen, which made this a serious, indeed grave example of the offence of indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16.
16 Whether, in the course of the attack, Beatrice actually touched your exposed penis which you were threatening to rape her with is of little moment. I do not consider the fact that she felt your exposed penis in the course of the attack further aggravates what is already, on my finding, a grave example of this offence.
17 Having invited Mr Pearson to respond to this preliminary view, he did not press the point, acknowledging the seriousness of the aggravating features that I had identified. He conceded it was open to me, on the evidence, and the verdict, to make those findings and, apart from his submission that I should not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt there was an actual touching, did not submit that I should not make those other findings or that there were alternative characterisations of the offending open to me.
18 I sentence you on Charge 1, therefore, on the basis that the indecent act is a serious, indeed grave example of the offence of indecent act. It occurred in the context of a terrifying and cruel attack. That it was perpetrated by a father who was punishing his daughter, the daughter he had been sexually abusing for a considerable period, the daughter who he had impregnated and who had just had a termination as a result, a daughter who told, not a lie, but the truth about what had been happening to her, provides the context and calls for denunciation and deterrence to be given significant weight.
19 From then on, Beatrice denied that you had made her pregnant or that you had sexually, physically or in any other way abused her. When asked to explain why she maintained denials thereafter she said, in what was in my view a telling illustration of the hold that you had over her:
Well, first of all, my father had cared for me all his life and he made sure that I knew that he put on hold his life a lot of times for me, and I'm his first child, he had invested a lot, and I had just betrayed him.[4]
[4]Transcript, 75.
20 The abuse continued. In 2009, a pregnancy test confirmed that Beatrice was again pregnant. You arranged an elaborate set up, where Beatrice was directed to invite a young man to your home to have unprotected sex with him, in circumstances where you would, by arrangement, walk in and catch them in the act. This was to provide an alternative explanation or an alternative person to blame for the pregnancy. Beatrice did as you directed. After you had walked in on the two of them, you professed paternal concern about their engaging in unprotected sex. Not surprisingly, the young man soon left the house. As soon as he had left, you engaged in an act of unprotected penile-vaginal penetration with Beatrice. It is that act which gives rise to Charge 2, incest, of which the jury found you guilty. As events transpired, Beatrice miscarried soon after that, so there was no need to lay the blame on the young man or for her to have another termination.
21 Mr Pearson acknowledged that it was proper to take into account, in respect of this charge, as context and as aggravating features, that the act of sexual penetration occurred after Beatrice had become pregnant, that you had caused the pregnancy, that you had deliberately engaged in a scheme to divert attention from you as the person responsible for the pregnancy, directing your daughter to have sex with an innocent young man and setting him up as a dupe or decoy to explain the pregnancy and that it was immediately after she had engaged in the sexual activity with him at your direction that you had then, unprotected, sexually penetrated her yourself.
22 Again, after that incident, the abuse continued unabated. In 2010, Beatrice went to Sydney for a short time to stay with some friends. On her return, you interrogated her about the people she had spent time with and you accused her of having had sex with a young man who was part of the family group that she was staying with. She denied that. You then engaged in an act of penile-vaginal penetration with her, ostensibly in order that she prove that she had not had sex with the young man. As a result of that act of sexual penetration, she became pregnant again. It was acknowledged by your counsel that it was this act of incest that resulted in Beatrice’s third pregnancy and that gives rise to Charge 3 of which the jury found you guilty. Once that pregnancy was confirmed, you directed Beatrice to have a termination. You rehearsed her in a story to tell, attributing responsibility to a boy still, like her, at school.. She went to see a GP on her own and then went to the clinic where the termination was to be performed on her own. She had no support during the termination. Given the threats that you had previously made and the attack on her after she had revealed you as the true source of the first pregnancy, although this time she was older and she saw the doctors alone, she still did not reveal you as the cause of the pregnancy.
23 Mr Pearson acknowledged that, consistently with the jury verdict, it was open to find that it was you who was responsible for causing the pregnancy that resulted from this act of sexual penetration, that it was the third pregnancy that you had caused and that you had made sure that your daughter would have a termination of that pregnancy. This was her second termination before she was 18 years of age. He acknowledged that the fact that this act of sexual penetration resulted in pregnancy (and not for the first time), made this the most serious of the charges of which the jury found you guilty.
24 The sexual abuse of Beatrice continued. When she turned 18, you took her to a nightclub. She had not previously drunk alcohol. You gave her several alcoholic drinks. She was visibly affected by them. So much so that you had to support her on the way home. When you arrived home, you took her to your bedroom, undressed her and, as she moved in and out of consciousness, engaged in an act of penile-vaginal penetration with her. It is this act of incest that gives rise to Charge 4, of which the jury found you guilty.
25 Mr Pearson submitted that it was not open to find that you had deliberately got your daughter drunk in order to have sex with her that night. He conceded that the fact that you knew that she was intoxicated and therefore more vulnerable is a relevant aggravating feature to take into account in respect of this charge. It is clearly so.
26 Even then the offending did not finish. You continued to sexually assault and sexually penetrate your daughter, but as she got older, finished school and became more independent, she became better able to resist, more aware that what you were doing was wrong and that she did have a right to try and defend herself, to prevent your behaviour and to remove herself from your orbit.
27 Her resistance led to a deterioration in the relationship you had with her and ultimately, in 2012 you removed her clothing and possessions from the house onto the nature strip and told her to leave home.
28 The pastor at Beatrice’s church came to hear that she had been told to leave home and was showing signs of having been physically abused and he spoke to her. She acknowledged that she had been physically abused by you and on direct inquiry also acknowledged that she had been sexually abused by you. He immediately made a report to the police, took her to the police station and ultimately she made a statement detailing the abuse.
29 Although that did precipitate a police inquiry, it was slow at the start. It was not until about 12 months after Beatrice had made her statement to the police that you were interviewed. When interviewed, you denied any sexual misconduct. A year later, in May 2014, you met Beatrice. She, unbeknown to you, had been provided with a recording device by police and was recording the conversation. In the conversation she confronted you with being responsible for having made her pregnant. You did not deny that you had done so.
30 For reasons unexplained, despite the 2012 report, the 2013 interview and the 2014 conversation where you failed to deny her assertions that you had made her pregnant, it was not until 2018 that the prosecution proceeded and not until 2019 that the trial was conducted.
31 Mr Pearson acknowledged, in respect of all charges, that the abuse of your position of trust as the father, the sole parent responsible for your daughter, her vulnerability and isolation in Australia, your threats of punishment and retaliation if she revealed what you were doing, the context of the persistent sexual, physical and emotional abuse in which the four separate acts occurred, were all features proper to take into account in assessing the objective seriousness of the offending.
32 In addition to these matters, the prosecution submitted that, given that these four charges are not acts occurring in isolation and given Beatrice’s age during the offending, it was proper for the sentence to reflect that, as Beatrice herself had said, her youth had been taken from her by this appalling and persistent breach of trust. Other aggravating features the prosecution correctly submitted that I should take into account were that violence was a feature of the offending and the context in which it occurred, that it was used in order to secure continued submission, that the offences occurred in the victim’s own home and that, as a consequence of your denial of the offences to family members and your response to the allegations, she has been deprived of the family support which a young person who has suffered the abuse she has should be able to enjoy. The prosecution also relied on the fact that the sexual activity the subject of Charges 2, 3 and 4 was unprotected and that Charges 1 and 2 occurred in the context of an attempt to cover up a pregnancy caused by you and Charge 3 resulted in a further pregnancy. I accept those submissions.
33 Mr McKenry also submitted with some force that it was hard to imagine how offences such as these could have impacted on a victim more than they actually had on your daughter.
34 Beatrice was present in court for the reading of her victim impact statement, for the plea in its entirety and she is present again today on the day of sentence. No child should have to go through what you put your daughter through. Children are entitled to be protected, not abused, by their parents. The responsibility that rests on a sole parent is even greater because a child cannot fall back on the other parent if she is being abused or for support if her truthfulness and integrity are challenged and her character traduced, as your daughter's was.
35 She is a remarkable, brave and strong young woman. She has shown strength, courage and dignity throughout the court process as I told her at the end of the reading of her victim impact statement. That included strength, courage and dignity in the face of a protracted and challenging cross-examination during which her character, her truthfulness and her integrity were, on your instructions, impugned. On your instructions, she was accused of lying and being motivated by spite. It is greatly to her credit that she can see herself and does see herself as a survivor, that she can value her worth and that she has plans for a strong independent future where she is in control of her life.
36 That she is able to do so is despite, not because, of your treatment of her. You have not only taken away her childhood, you have denied her your support. She has also been deprived of the support of those family members and friends who have believed your protestations of innocence or who have accepted your blaming of her for bringing this out into the open, bringing shame upon you and the family.
37 Let me make this very clear. Nothing that has happened to you as a result of your daughter’s disclosures, the charges, the trial or the jury verdicts is her fault. You and you alone are responsible for your behaviour and for the consequences of it. You and you alone are the only person who is to be and who should be punished.
38 It is clear that, subject to considerations personal to you, this offending is of such gravity that denunciation, deterrence and just punishment loom very large in the sentencing mix.
39 Turning then to your personal circumstances. You are now 45 years of age, and were between 34 and 36 years of age at the time of the offending behaviour for which you come to be sentenced.
40 As already noted, you were born in Africa. Your country was ravaged by civil war. You managed, despite the war, to complete high school and to commence post-secondary studies. However, the effect of the war meant that those studies were interrupted and, as you moved from place to place in neighbouring countries, you were required to work when and how you could to support yourself.
41 You must have been only 19 or 20 when Beatrice was born. From the time that she was about seven, you assumed parental care for her and she lived with you or with relatives under your supervision from then until the time you left Africa and arrived in Australia in 2008 when she was 15. No doubt you were seeking a better life.
42 Despite the war and the dislocation that that caused, living at times with relatives, at times in refugee camps, at times in obviously very difficult circumstances, Beatrice was sent to school and you ensured that she had access to education. You emphasised to her the importance of obtaining a good education in order to maximise her prospects of having a successful life.
43 I was told, and I accept, that the effect of war and dislocation meant that you were exposed to many distressing sights and experiences. Although you do not wish to discuss them or to cast yourself as a victim as a result or rely on them as any mitigation, I accept that a person cannot emerge from such experiences unscathed.
44 Since arriving in Australia in 2008, you have had a history of steady employment and of working and studying to improve yourself. When you first arrived you were working as a car detailer. You went to university and obtained a diploma in community welfare and a degree in social science and sociology. Before you came to Australia, you had worked for the Red Cross or the United Nations, assisting other refugees. On arrival here, you volunteered for some time at the Migrant Resource Centre. You have also worked in security and you obtained a security licence, which was suspended or cancelled as a result of these charges. I accept that you have had a good steady history of work and study to improve yourself.
45 You appear to have had a number of relationships with women since your relationship with Beatrice’s mother came to an end. You have had little or no recent contact with the two daughters who were born to the two women with whom you had relationships when you were in the refugee camp and who you were sponsored by or connected with in relation to your arrival in Australia.
46 You have two children under five from your current relationship. I was told your partner is still supportive of you. You have been living with her and the two children up until the time of your remand in custody following the jury verdict.
47 I am told that you now see your relationship with Beatrice as a thing of the past. Consistently with your pleas of not guilty, your denial of the charges and the manner in which the trial was conducted, you maintain your innocence. You appear to have maintained the support, not only of your partner, but also of your mother and members of your extended family. That is positive for you, but it means that Beatrice has lost the support of her paternal grandmother who had been, until the time she made her disclosures, a significant figure in her life.
48 Given your denial of the charges, it is difficult to make an assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation. Counting in your favour are these matters: the absence of any other criminal convictions, a history of resilient survival of the many challenges you faced both in Africa and upon relocation to Australia, your demonstrated capacity for work and for taking on work even if it is less than you are capable of or qualified to do and your persistence in studying to better yourself. You were brought up a Christian and still consider yourself to be a devout Christian. You have, as I have noted, the continued support of your partner here in Australia and your mother and other extended family members in Africa and in the diaspora. I am told that you do not have and have never had a problem with illicit drugs, that you rarely drink and alcohol is not a problem for you. There is nothing to indicate any mental health problems. All these count as positive factors when assessing prospects for rehabilitation.
49 On the other hand, you maintain your innocence and that makes any assessment of your risks of further sexual offending, whether with other daughters or other young girls, difficult.
50 If you had acknowledged your wrongdoing and worked at identifying what protective measures needed to be taken in order to protect other young girls over whom you may be able to exercise dominion or control, that, coupled with the other positive factors I have identified, would no doubt lead to a finding that your prospects for rehabilitation were good.
51 However, having regard to your continued denials and maintaining of innocence, at best it can be said, in my view, that your prospects for rehabilitation are guarded.
52 It follows from all of this that weight must be given to specific as well as general deterrence.
53 In fixing on the appropriate sentence, I have had regard to what was said by the High Court in DPP v Dalgliesh,[5] namely that, before the High Court loosened the shackles imposed by the interpretation of current sentencing practices, sentences for incest in Victoria did not reflect the objective gravity of the offending. I have therefore reviewed incest sentences imposed by this court and considered by the Court of Appeal in this state post-Dalgliesh. I note that many of the sentences that were imposed post-Dalgliesh have been imposed following the imposition of guilty pleas.
[5]Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428
54 You do not have the benefit of obtaining the considerable discount or reduction in sentence which follows a guilty plea. There is a significant reduction, even for a late entered guilty plea, in respect of incest charges, which relates, not only to the utilitarian benefits of such a plea and of advancing the interests of justice, but more significantly for acknowledging the truthfulness of the victim and sparing her the ordeal of giving evidence, of reliving events and the indignity of being challenged on the truthfulness of her account and of being called a liar.
55 It is clear that sentences imposed in other cases may provide a yardstick, but certainly not a straitjacket. It is trite to say that each case must be considered on its own facts and circumstances. No two cases are the same. It is of little utility to talk about whether something is in the worst category of cases. It is more useful and helpful to identify, as I have sought to do here, what I consider to be the aggravating features and the combination of them in this particular case.
56 I accept that, when fixing the individual sentences and the cumulation between them, ultimately I must ensure that the overall sentence, whilst reflecting the objective gravity of the offending, the individual charges and the statutory imperative to impose a sentence that properly serves the needs of just punishment, denunciation, deterrence, encouragement of rehabilitation and the protection of the community, conforms with the principle of totality. By reason of the serious sexual offender provisions you come to be sentenced in respect of Charges 3 and 4 as a serious sexual offender. Having regard to the number of charges, the nature of them and the significance of the principle of totality, it is clearly not appropriate nor necessary in the interest of protection of the community to impose full cumulation in respect of those charges to which the serious sexual offender provisions apply.
57 I have endeavoured to take those matters into account in fixing upon the appropriate sentences. Could you now please stand.
58 James Nenna, on the four charges of which the jury has found you guilty you are convicted.
59 On Charge 1 of indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of five years and I direct two years of that be served cumulatively upon the base sentence which is Charge 3, and the other partial cumulation orders I am about to pronounce.
60 On Charge 2 of incest, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 10 years, two years of that is to be served cumulatively upon the other partial cumulation orders and the base sentence.
61 On Charge 3 of incest, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 12 years.
62 On Charge 4 of incest, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 10 years and again, two years is to be served cumulatively upon the other partial cumulation orders and the base sentence.
63 That makes a total effective sentence of 18 years and I fix the period of 14 years as the period that you must serve before being eligible for parole. Is it 50 days PSD?
MR McKENRY: Correct, not including today.
HER HONOUR: I declare that you have spent 50 days in pre-sentence detention and direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served. I make the serious sexual offender declaration in respect of Charges 3 and 4 and direct that that be placed on the record. I have already made the Sex Offender Registration Act order and the forensic sample order. Are there any further orders that are required to be made?
MR McKENRY: There are not, your Honour.
MR CARE: No, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Do the sentences that I pronounced reflect what I said I intended to do?
MR McKENRY: Yes, your mathematics is correct.
HER HONOUR: Right. Thank you.
MR CARE: If your Honour pleases.
HER HONOUR: Thank you. Can you please remove Mr Nenna.
- - -
4