DPP v Palliyaguruge
[2021] VCC 958
•15 July 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-19-01031
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| KUSHAN PALLIYAGURUGE |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 29 April and 17 June and 15 July 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 15 July 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Palliyaguruge | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 958 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal law - sentence
Catchwords: Three charges of rape – serious offending against intoxicated young woman – no prior criminal history – burden of imprisonment – consideration of previous detention in immigration detention – standard sentence - serious sexual offender on charge 3
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958; Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:
Sentence: 8 years, four months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and four months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the DPP | Mr C. McConaghy | Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Pearson (Trial and sentence) | Paul Vale Criminal Law |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
1Kushan Palliyaguruge, on 9 March 2021 you were convicted by a jury of 12 of three charges of rape committed by you in the early hours of the morning of 16 December 2018 in Ringwood and Endeavour Hills.
2You were born in Sri Lanka in October 1992. At the time of the offending you were 26 years old and were living in Australia on a student visa to undertake a course of study. You have no prior criminal history.
3The victim in this matter is Piper Graham[1]. She was born in March 1999 and was 19 years old in December 2018. You had never met her prior to the night of the offending.
[1]A pseudonym to prevent the complainant’s identification
Summary of the offending
4I turn now to the facts of this case.
5You fall to be sentenced on a basis consistent with the jury verdict in your trial[2]. It is accepted that this effectively means that you are to be sentenced on the account Ms Graham gave and the other evidence adduced at trial.
[2]Cheung v the Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1, 9 [6].
6On 15 December 2018, Ms Graham went out for dinner to celebrate a friend’s 19th birthday and then returned to her house for ‘pre-drinks’ where she began drinking alcohol. Later that evening, Ms Graham and her friends went to the Sooki Lounge in Belgrave, where she continued drinking. At one point, Ms Graham went outside for a while but was prevented from re-entering by security due to her level of intoxication. She then met a group of people outside the venue, who were around her age. They told her they were going to take the train to Ringwood to go to the Orange Whip Nightclub. Ms Graham decided to go with them.
7On the train ride, Ms Graham was quite tired and was not feeling well.
8She arrived at the Orange Whip Nightclub at approximately 12.50 am on 16 December 2018. Before entering the nightclub, Ms Graham met a male and began speaking with him. She entered the nightclub with him. Once inside the nightclub, she and the male had some drinks, danced and kissed. Ms Graham drank a ‘bucket’ sized drink called a ‘Fruit Tingle’ mixed with vodka, and at least two other alcoholic drinks. She then separated from the male.
9You also arrived at the Orange Whip Nightclub at around 12.50 am on 16 December 2018 together with your housemate. Before leaving for the nightclub, you drank one glass of scotch whiskey and soda at home. When you arrived, you parked your car, a Nissan Pulsar, at the front of the nightclub on Maroondah Highway. You did not have any other alcoholic drinks after you arrived at the nightclub. You were not alcohol affected.
10At approximately 2.00 am, a security guard employed at the Orange Whip Nightclub noticed Ms Graham standing near the couches in the main section of the nightclub. She appeared a ‘bit wobbly’ and ‘slightly drunk’ to him, and he asked her if she was okay. At that point, you came up to the security guard and told him Ms Graham was your ‘girlfriend’ and that you were going to take her home. The security guard asked Ms Graham who you were, and she said you were her friend. The security guard then saw you leaving the club, holding Ms Graham by the shoulder.
11CCTV footage from the nightclub shows you escorting Ms Graham from the nightclub with your arm firmly around her shoulders, followed by security. Ms Graham has no memory of leaving the nightclub or interacting with you at the nightclub. CCTV footage taken outside the nightclub shows you separate from Ms Graham and enter the driver’s side of the car, while Ms Graham enters the front passenger seat. Ms Graham mistakenly believed she was getting into an Uber.
12You gave evidence at your trial that you drove Ms Graham to Ringwood Lakes Park. Ms Graham recalls that at one point, you pulled over and she entered the back seat and lay down. You orally penetrated her by licking her clitoris and her vagina. Ms Graham says you licked in and around the outer part of her vagina and the clitoris and inside her vagina, ‘as far as you could reach’. Consistent with the jury verdict, you did so without her consent (Charge 2 – rape). Ms Graham was feeling scared and so drunk at this point that she could not really take in all that was happening to her. You gave evidence that Ms Graham vomited out the left passenger side of the car while you were at Ringwood Lakes Park[3].
[3]T388, L21-29
13You then left Ringwood Lakes Park. Ms Graham remained in the back, behind the driver’s seat. While you were driving, you reached around and inserted your fingers in her vagina, quite ‘forcefully’ and without her consent (Charge 1 – rape). Ms Graham recalls crying and feeling drunk; and coming in and out of consciousness at the time.
14Sometime after 3 am, you drove Ms Graham to your home in Endeavour Hills. Ms Graham remembers you pulling her out of the car and ‘kind of dragging her’ to the front door. At this point, she was very drunk and scared. She was stumbling and you were holding her up. You asked Ms Graham to be quiet inside the house.
15Once inside, you took Ms Graham into your bedroom. You pushed or guided her onto the bed where she was positioned on her hands and knees. Ms Graham recalls rolling onto her back and seeing you standing naked. She does not have any further recollection of what occurred inside the house.
16Urine and blood samples taken from Ms Graham at 8.20 am and 11.10 am on 16 December 2018 were analysed. At the trial, expert evidence was given by forensic physician, Dr Angela Sungaila that at 2.30 am on 16 December 2018, Ms Graham’s blood alcohol concentration would have been between 0.131% and 0.218%[4].
[4]T240, L1-9
17Dr Sungaila also gave evidence that .03 milligrams/litre of MDMA, known as ecstasy, was found in a sample of Ms Graham’s urine. Ms Graham’s evidence, which I accept, was that she never used drugs, and had not taken ecstasy that night. It appears her drink was spiked at some stage that evening by a person unknown to her. There is no evidence to support a conclusion that it was you who did so, and I make no such finding.
18Mr James Beaurepaire, forensic scientist, gave evidence at your trial. He said that forensic samples taken from both you and Ms Graham were subject to DNA analysis. Analysis of the sample taken from your right fingernail established that the DNA sample was 4400 times more likely if Ms Graham was a contributor[5]. Analysis of a Ms Graham’s endocervical swab showed a mixed DNA profile with two contributors. You matched the profile of the major contributor and when compared to a database of known individuals, Mr Beaurepaire said the expected frequency of observing such a result was approximately 1 in 2301 Caucasian males[6].
[5]T290, L24-31 and T
[6]T294, 12-26
19Consistent with the jury verdict, I find that you sexually penetrated the vagina of Ms Graham with your penis without her consent while she was in your bedroom. At that point, Ms Graham was either unconscious or so intoxicated that she was incapable of consenting to the sexual penetration (charge 3 – rape).
20The next thing Ms Graham recalls is being outside the front of your house, asking for her purse and phone. You handed her the phone, which she had originally placed on the console of your car. At 3.24 am she called a friend and told him that she thought she had been raped. After speaking with her friend, Ms Graham asked you to take her home. Ms Graham was very upset, crying and calling out for her mother in the car as you drove her home.
21At some point, Ms Graham vomited out the front passenger seat of your car. Ms Graham says it was only the way home, but the timing is not entirely clear.
22Ms Graham does not remember getting out of your car or going down her driveway. Her mother says that when her daughter arrived home she had obviously been crying and appeared dishevelled[7]. Her mother asked what had happened. Ms Graham replied, “just the Uber” and that “he put his fingers in me”. Her mother then contacted police and reported the matter.
[7]T100, L9-10
23On 16 December 2018, Ms Graham was taken to the Monash Medical Centre and underwent a forensic medical examination. Dr George Manolis, clinical forensic registrar, said the examination revealed two split lacerations to her posterior fourchette. In the midline there was a 5mm split and to the left there was a smaller split laceration of approximately 3mm[8].
[8]T265, L16-25
24You were arrested and interviewed by police on 16 December 2018. You told police you attended the Orange Whip Nightclub with your flatmate and that you only spoke to him at the nightclub[9].
[9]Exhibit 9, Record of Interview of accused, Q/A 403.
Gravity of offending
25I turn now to make some comments about the nature and gravity of the offending.
26Clearly, this was very serious offending. The offence of rape is itself serious, as gauged by the maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment fixed by Parliament.
27In assessing the objective gravity of your offending, it is also relevant to consider the nature and extent of your offending conduct, its frequency and duration and the circumstances in which it occurred.
28In this case, the victim was in an extremely vulnerable position due to her level of intoxication. Once she was alone with you, you took advantage of her intoxicated state for your own sexual gratification.
29Your conduct was predatory. You approached the security guard after he spoke with to Ms Graham to see if she was alright. You told him Ms Graham was your girlfriend and then, as can be seen from the CCTV footage, you held her firmly by the shoulders as you guided her out of the nightclub. From this point, in effect, you controlled what was occurring to Ms Graham. Whilst I accept she is seen to enter your car voluntarily, she does so thinking you are an Uber driver. She is mistaken in this belief. However, I accept you did not say or do anything to give her this impression.
30The law regards the act of rape as an inherently violent act. I do accept, however, that your offending was not accompanied by threats or excessive violence towards the victim. The first two instances are relatively confined in time and the entire offending occurs over an approximate two-hour period. It is not the duration of the offending that makes the offending so serious, it is the circumstances in which it occurred.
31Whilst there was limited pre-meditation to your offending, it could not be said that your actions were spontaneous. Although I cannot conclude that you intended to rape Ms Graham as you left the nightclub, once she was alone with you in your car, and clearly drunk, you then took advantage of her vulnerable state to sexually offend against her. Moreover, once you became aware she was seriously intoxicated, to the point of vomiting at Ringwood Parks Lake, you did not desist but rather, continued to take sexual advantage of her, exploiting her vulnerability both in the car and then at your home. You sexually offended against the victim while she was incapable of consenting and powerless to stop your offending. You preyed on her vulnerability and your moral culpability for the offending is significant.
32Your offending against Ms Graham has had a devastating impact on almost every aspect of her life. In her victim impact statement, Ms Graham says she ruminates on the events, and experiences feelings of shame and guilt. She rightly says the fact she was intoxicated gave you no right to take advantage of her. She now struggles with anxiety, depression and has developed an eating disorder. She is consumed by feelings of sadness and hopelessness. The offending has affected her ability to work, to socialise, to trust and to be intimate.
33Her mother also provided a victim impact statement. She speaks of these events as a mother’s worst nightmare. She describes feeling shocked, frightened, angry and heartbroken. She says the last two-and-a-half years have been an emotional roller coaster for her daughter, and have left her feeling exhausted, sad and defeated. Although she bears no responsibility for your conduct, her mother feels guilty for not picking her daughter up that night. I have taken the impact of your offending on the victims into account in sentencing you.
Personal circumstances
34I turn now to your personal circumstances. You were born, raised and educated in Sri Lanka.
35
You come from a family that is well-respect in the Sri Lankan community and with whom you remain close. Your father, now 59-years-old, is a businessman who has worked all his life in the rice industry. Unfortunately, your mother, now
52-years of age, has suffered poor mental health since 2019 which is a cause of concern for you. You were particularly close to your mother when you were growing up. You maintain a good relationship with your two brothers; your older brother is a 33-year-old engineer now living in Germany and your younger brother is an 18-year-old school student who still lives with your parents in Sri Lanka. Your family are devout Buddhists and you regularly attended the temple together when you were living in Sri Lanka.
36You were supported by your family to obtain a good education. You completed your A levels, the equivalent of VCE, and then attended the International School for Business Management in Sri Lanka where you completed a degree in International Business Management in 2016. You travelled to Melbourne in March 2017 to commence a Masters in Professional Accounting through Charles Sturt University but, having failed two subjects, transferred to a commercial cooking course through Acumen Education in mid-2018. You supplemented your studies working part-time as a cleaner at Deakin University.
37Following your arrest, your student visa was cancelled and in March 2019, you were taken into immigration detention. You were released in October 2019 on a bridging visa to reside with your cousin. In February 2020, your visa conditions were altered and you were able to work. You secured employment as a courier in the CBD until your trial commenced.
38I have received and read a number of character references on the plea[10]. Some of these are general references which refer to you being respectfully engaged in community, charitable and temple activities in Sri Lanka. Other character references come family and family friends who have known you a long time. The speak of you as a generous and trustworthy person who is extremely polite yet shy and family-oriented. The references all say you grew up imbued with Buddhist values and morals. Dr Munasinghe, a Doctor of Ethics employed in the Faculty of Pharmacy at Monash University, who has known you for over a decade, says this offence is completely out of character for you, a sentiment reflected in the references provided by your uncle and older brother.
[10]These references formed Exhibit 3
39As stated, you have no prior convictions. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that you are a person who has otherwise been of good character.
40You were assessed for the purposes of your plea by Mr Warren Simmons, Consulting Psychologist, on 25 March 2021. You told Mr Simmons that you commenced a relationship with a woman, one year younger than you, 10 years ago and that you were formally engaged prior to coming to Australia. You were to be married in 2019. You told Mr Simmons you had little opportunity to be alone with your partner prior to leaving Sri Lanka. Since your arrest, that relationship has ended.
41During your assessment, you told Mr Simmons that you suffer from gastritis and do not drink alcohol to excess as it makes you ill. You denied any illicit drug use.
42Whilst in immigration detention, you told Mr Simmons that you were anxious and unable to eat or sleep. You lost a significant amount of weight during your time in detention. You told Mr Simmons that more recently, you had experienced feelings of helplessness and suicidal thoughts. Mr Simmons did not however, undertake any formal psychological testing or express an opinion regarding your psychological state either at the time of the offending, or subsequently. To obtain a further expert opinion regarding your state of mental health, I ordered that a psychological report be provided through Forensicare pursuant to s8A of the Sentencing Act 1991. The plea was adjourned for that purpose.
Mental health and burden of imprisonment
43You were assessed in custody by Dr Michael Davis, Consultant Forensic and Clinical Psychologist, Forensicare on 7 June 2021. In his report dated 15 June 2021, Dr Davis found that your current mental state is “currently affected by clear signs of depressed mood, tension and guilt for how…[the] current charges have affected and impacted on his family members’, in particular, your mother. He says you presented ‘as a depressed, tense, frequently tearful, and very emotionally immature young man’ who, in his opinion, meets the formal criteria for a Major Depressive Disorder (moderate-to-severe, with anxious distress)[11].
[11]Report of Dr Davis, Forensicare dated 15 June 2021, paragraph [75].
44Further, in Dr Davis’ opinion ‘the impact of imprisonment on [your] mental health is poor’. He reaches this conclusion based on the deterioration of your mood when detained in immigration detention that was ameliorated to some degree when you returned to the community and has since worsened since your assessment with Mr Simmons in March 2021 despite medication. Dr Davis considers that you are especially ill-prepared to cope with ‘the vicissitudes of prison life’.
45I accept that imprisonment will be especially difficult for you for a number of reasons. First, you are isolated from your family in Sri Lanka. With the exception of your cousin, you are unlikely to have the support of family visits during your time in custody. Secondly, the conditions in custody to respond to COVID-19 will also add to your hardship as a prisoner, particularly as this is your first time in custody. The uncertainty associated with the pandemic will be an added anxiety. Finally, and significantly, I accept that you currently suffer from a moderate to severe major depressive disorder and, consistent with the expert opinion of Dr Davis, your condition is likely to deteriorate in custody. This, in turn, will make your time in prison more onerous than that experienced by other prisoners. I accept that both limbs 5 and 6 of the authority in Verdins apply in sentencing you.
46I also accept Dr Davis’ conclusion that you present as ‘a remarkably immature young man’ at risk of victimisation in the prison environment. This opinion was reached by Dr Davis, noting that you had been the subject of a physical assault by another prisoner on the morning of your assessment with him. I accept that your immaturity is relevant and that the risk of victimisation in prison, combined with your severe major depressive disorder, should be taken into account in the sentence I am to impose.
47Accordingly, I have moderated each component of the sentences in light of these considerations. In doing so however, I have been mindful that these considerations do not override the need for the sentence to meet other important sentencing considerations in your case, including denunciation, just punishment and general deterrence.
Matters relevant in mitigation of sentence
Delay and time in immigration detention
48I turn now to other matters relevant in mitigation of your sentence, dealing first with the question of delay. The offending occurred two and a half years ago. A trial date set for March 2020 could not proceed because of the impact of the pandemic on jury trials. During this period, you spent time in immigration detention and then on strict conditions of bail. You have fully complied with those conditions, have not offended and have lived in a state of uncertainty, removed from family during this period. I have made some allowance for this delay in sentencing you.
49You were in immigration detention following your arrest, from 26 March 2019 to 4 October 2019; a period of 194 days. It is accepted that your visa was cancelled and that you were placed in immigration detention at that time because of these charges. During that period you were in a secure, guarded and locked environment at Melbourne Immigration Transit (ITA) facility where you did not have freedom to come and go.
50Consistent with the reports to Mr Simmons and Dr Davis, the records of the Department of Immigration state that while in detention you reported suffering from anxiety and depression from June 2019 onwards, and in August/September 2019, were recorded as having trouble sleeping and were given medication for your mental health as you “tried to deal with the mounting pressures of being in detention on a daily basis”[12]. You were handcuffed for each attendance at court in relation to these charges.
[12]Records of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, ‘Detainee Dossier’ for Kushan Palliyaguruge , page 52-56; and 57, 67.
51The law requires me to recognise the fact of this detention in a ‘broad and practical way’ having regard to the nature and severity of the restrictions to which you were subject during the period of detention[13]. I am satisfied that your time in immigration detention was time spent in custody. In the broad sense, you were deprived of your liberty during this period. I have also considered the impact of this period of detention on the deterioration in your mental health as outlined by Dr Davis. However, there were also some differences between your experience of immigration detention and imprisonment. For instance, as highlighted by the prosecution, you were able to keep your mobile phone with you in immigration detention and maintain regular contact with your family during that period. While I accept there are more limitations on you in prison, I have had regard to the fact you were held in custody in immigration detention for just over six months in moderating your sentence by reference to a significant component of this period.
[13]See Mairown Sahhitanandan v The Queen [2019] VSCA 115 at [32]
Previous good character and prospects of rehabilitation
52Your absence of priors and previous good character are factors that inform my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation.
53Additionally, Dr Davis undertook a formal risk assessment during your assessment and concluded that you are “a low to moderate risk for sexual recidivism’. I have had regard to this risk assessment in my sentence. Dr Davis does suggest that you be considered for the sexual offender treatment program and engage in a period of offence-specific treatment with a focus on consent and healthy intimate relationships. I agree with this recommendation. In general terms, I accept you have good prospects of rehabilitation.
54You have expressed no remorse for the offending, which you continue to deny. It is your right to maintain your innocence, but as a consequence there is no evidence of remorse or contrition for me to act upon to reduce your sentence. It is also extremely difficult to assess your level of insight into your offending behaviour.
55You are not to be punished for electing to plead not guilty or for your lack of remorse, but your lack of remorse remains relevant to my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation. The absence of insight or remorse for taking advantage of an extremely intoxicated young woman leads me to conclude your otherwise good prospects of rehabilitation are also contingent on you effectively engaging in a program of offence-specific treatment. Although not a prominent sentencing consideration, specific deterrence has some role to play in sentencing you.
Other sentencing considerations
56As stated, the maximum penalty for the offence of rape is 25 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty is one of a range of factors to which I must have regard in sentencing you.
57The offence of rape is a ‘standard sentencing offence’. As these offences were committed after 1 February 2018, the standard sentencing scheme applies in sentencing you on all three charges. The applicable standard sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
58The scheme set out in s5A and s5B of the Sentencing Act 1991 requires me to take the standard sentence into account as one of the factors relevant to sentencing.
59In Brown v the Queen[14], the Court of Appeal made the following statements of principle regarding sentencing for standard sentence offences:
The key new requirement is that a judge when sentencing for a standard sentence offence must take the standard sentence into account as one of the factors relevant to sentencing. This requirement:
·is to be treated as a ‘legislative guidepost’, having the same function as the maximum penalty;
·does not affect the established ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach to sentencing;
·does not require or permit ‘two-stage sentencing’; and
·does not otherwise affect the matters to which the court may, or must, take into account in sentencing.
[14][2019] VSCA 286 at [4]
60The Court of Appeal further stated that a sentencing judge should continue to assess offence seriousness in the conventional way, taking into account both objective gravity and moral culpability[15], stating:
…the standard sentence provisions do not have any bearing on the judge’s obligation to assess the seriousness of the subject offence. That assessment remains part of the process of instinctive synthesis and is not constrained by the legislative definition of ‘objective factors’. Those constraints are referrable only to the assessment which gives content to the hypothetical offence as an offence in the middle of the range of seriousness.
[15]ibid, at [7]
61The only previous sentences to which I may have regard when considering current sentencing practices are those that have been imposed under the standard sentencing regime for the offence of rape. I was referred to decisions published by the Victorian Court of Appeal and this Court regarding sentences for the offence of rape under the standard sentencing regime[16]. I have considered these cases which give some guidance but, as always, every case turns on its own facts. As was made clear in the authority of Dalgliesh[17], current sentencing practices are only one of a number of factors to which I have regard when sentencing you.
[16]DPP v Jordan Drake [2019] VSCA 293; DPP v Christopher Kevin Beck [2021] VSCA 88; DPP v Eric Frank (a pseudonym) [2021] VSCA 163; DPP v Manpreet Singh [2019] VCC 1484; DPP v Babar [2021] VCC (26 February 2021, Judge C Ryan)
[17]DPP v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41, (2017) 262 CLR 428
62I have also had regard to the purposes of imposing sentence set out in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991. In a case such as this, the paramount sentencing considerations are general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment. In sentencing you, my sentence must send an unequivocal message that it is never acceptable to take sexual advantage of young women when they a vulnerable to such behaviour due to intoxication. The objective seriousness of your offending warrants an immediate and substantial sentence of imprisonment.
63Pursuant to s6B(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act 1991 you are to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender on Charge 3. Section 6D of the Act requires that the protection of the community be the principal purpose of sentencing for that offence. The prosecution does not submit that I should impose a disproportionate sentence to achieve the protection of the community. In the circumstances of this case, I agree with that submission.
64Section 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 requires that the term of imprisonment imposed on Charge 3 must, unless otherwise directed, be served cumulatively.
65Finally, I have also had regard to the standard sentence of 10 years as one of the factors relevant in sentencing you on the three charges of rape. The standard sentence is the period specified by the Sentencing Act 1991 that is the appropriate sentence for the middle of the range of seriousness, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence. It is a legislated guidepost, no more.
66The instinctive synthesis involved in sentencing still requires a balancing of many factors including the nature and seriousness of the offending as well as your personal circumstances. The individual sentences I am about to impose on each of three charges fall short of the standard sentence due to the mitigating effect of other factors I am also required to take into account in sentencing you. As indicated I have considered many factors in determining the sentence I am to impose on you including your previous good character, your good prospects of rehabilitation, your mental health, your time spent in immigration detention, delay and the burden of imprisonment.
Sentence
67Balancing all the factors to which I have referred, and guided by the standard and maximum sentences for the offence of rape, I sentence you as follows:
68On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
69On Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
70On Charge 3, you are convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. You are sentenced as a serious sexual offender on this charge. This the base sentence.
71It was conceded by the prosecution that there ought to be a significant degree of concurrency between the three charges which arose out of a single episode of offending. This approach ensures there is a proportionate sentence overall and meets the sentencing principle of totality.
72I order that eight months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and eight months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the base sentence and upon one another. This gives a total effective sentence of eight years’ and four months imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of five years and four months’ imprisonment before you become eligible for parole.
73Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 I declare 80 days of pre-sentence detention be reckoned as already served.
74Counsel, are there any questions in relation to the sentence I have imposed?
75COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
76HER HONOUR: Thank you. We will now adjourn the court.
- - -
7
9
0