R v Cemitis, Andrew [No 2]

[2010] NSWDC 89

CITATION:	R v Cemitis, Andrew [No 2] [2010] NSWDC 89 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
JUDGMENT DATE:	11 March 2010
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	Use/possess or attempt/threaten to use offensive weapon etc with intent to commit indictable offence (Count 1): Sentence to a minimum term of 9 months. Balance of term of 7 months Produce child pornography (Count 2): Sentence to a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months . Balance of term of 1 year and 4 months. Produce child pornography (Count 4): Sentence to a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. Balance of term of 1 year and 4 months. Possess child pornography (sequence 5): Sentence to a minimum term of 2 years. Balance of term of 8 months. Some accumulation among the sentences. S.166 matters Filming for indecent purpose: Pursuant to s.166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, Sentence to fixed term of 9 months imprisonment. Enter building/land with intent to commit indictable offence: Crown seeks leave to have the charge dismissed. Leave granted.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentence - Producing Child Pornography (x2), Possess Child Pornography, Use weapon to avoid lawful apprehension - filming young teenage girls dressing, undressing, and showering in their homes - filming whilst standing on stool outside bedroom or bathroom windows - flyscreen removed - personal knowledge of at least one victim - citizen's arrest - knife produced to threathen 16 year old arrester - accused premises searched - recording and copying equipment found - collection of child pornography found - all earlier filmed by offender - peeping Tom type material - past history of sexual offending - volunteer in SES.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Classification (Publications Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
CASES CITED:	R v Cuthbert [1967] 2 NSWR 329 R v Rushby [1977] NSWLR 597 R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740 Gladue v The Queen [1999] 1SCR 688 [80]
PARTIES:	Regina Andrew Lamons Cemitis
FILE NUMBER(S):	2008/11994
COUNSEL:	Defence: S Orman-Hales
SOLICITORS:	Crown: Mr C Bailey - Office of the DPP, Dubbo

JUDGMENT

1. On 10 March 2009 Andrew Cemitis was arraigned on five charges in the Moree District Court, he entered pleas of guilty to four of them. Two counts of producing child pornography at Moree between 1 September 2007 and 23 January 2008, see s 91H(2) Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty ten years; one count of possess child pornography at Moree on or about 23 January 2008, see s 91H(2) Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty ten years; and one count of using a weapon to avoid lawful apprehension, s 33B(1) Crimes Act 1900, maximum penalty twelve years imprisonment. There’s no standard non-parole period for that is there?

CROWN: That’s right your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:

2. These pleas were accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment. There are two s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 certificates- one charge enter land with intent to commit an indictable offence. I am told by the Crown it is not proceeding with that and it is my intention, at least at present, to dismiss it or mark it withdrawn. The second is one of filming SE for indecent purposes in respect of which a sentence is being called for by the Crown.

3. As sentencing judge it falls to me to resolve a number of competing tensions as I strive to determine the appropriate sentence for these offences before this court committed by this offender harming these victims in the community of Moree, Gladue v The Queen [1999] 1SCR 688 [80]. My initial task requires an assessment of what is called the objective criminality of the offences before the court. I will also need to have regard to matters personal to him called subjective matters. The starting point for these assessments requires me to make findings of fact from the evidence before the court relating to the offence and to the offender.

4. My fact finding task has been circumscribed in that the parties have tendered an agreed set of facts to which I shall shortly return. It is sufficient at this point that I remind the court, a judge is not a party to the agreed set of facts. The tender of agreed facts does not relieve him or her from the fact finding responsibility of being a judge. It simply limits the material from which the facts may be found. To the extent if it be the case that the facts as agreed do no reflect the actual events that occurred, it must be remembered the court can only find facts from the evidence before it.

5. The offender’s rehabilitation prospects will have to be assessed and in this case that Is a very difficult task. Before any sentence can be made there are likely to be technical questions relating to deterrence, discounts, whether special circumstances are to be found, totality, the s 166 matters I just referred to and finally of course the length of the incarceration period and the ultimate term of imprisonment or other penalty to be imposed. None of these can be commenced until the primary facts are determined. What weight needs to be given to all of these matters against an imperative that all sentencing should have as its primary focus the protection of the community will also need to be determined, see R v Cuthbert [1967] 2 NSWR 329, R v Rushby [1977] NSWLR 597 and R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740.

The Facts

6. At 11.40pm on 23 January 2008 JK, a young man aged sixteen, was walking with a female friend along Boonery Road, Moree to the home where she was staying with her friends whose surname begins with E. As they approached the residence at number 29 JK observed Andrew Cemitis standing on a stool in the backyard at the bathroom window of the premises he was heading for. At this time the child GE, then aged thirteen, was in the bathroom using the shower.

7. Cemitis was observed to be holding a video camera and filming the interior of the bathroom. That material constitutes the charge of count 1. Upon seeing this JK approached and confronted the offender. Cemitis ran from the yard easterly across a vacant block towards Tirzah Street. JK chased him to the opposite side of the road and tackled him causing him to fall to the ground. A struggle ensued during which the offender produced a “Leatherman” multi-tool, opened at a knife blade, and held the knife menacingly towards JK. The offender struggled free from JK’s grip and ran through a vacant block of land towards Tirzah Street. Young JK picked up a pine log and chased the offender calling upon him to halt, however the offender continued running.

8. The offender yelled to JK, “Do you want to get stabbed?” JK continued to pursue, caught up with Cemitis near the intersection of Sunnyside Road and Gwydir Street. Fearing he may be stabbed, but nonetheless wishing to apprehend Cemitis, JK struck the offender to the back of his head with a pine log causing him to fall to the ground. A further struggle ensued during which the offender attempted to bite JK. At this point an occupant of the home that JK was heading for approached and assisted JK in apprehending the offender who was restrained at the scene. Police were called and the offender was arrested.

9. He was taken to Moree Police Station, found to be in possession of a video camera that he had earlier been seen filming with, the Leatherman multi-tool and a set of car keys for his own motor vehicle. The motor vehicle was found parked in Boonery Road about forty metres south of the relevant premises. Upon viewing the contents of the video camera it was found to contain footage of the young victim naked in the shower.

10. The offender was introduced to the custody manager. Because he was complaining of a sore head he was conveyed to Moree Hospital where he was admitted. Upon release from hospital at around 8:30am he was returned to the Moree Police Station where he was offered an opportunity to be interviewed. As was his right, he declined. He was dressed throughout in a black polo shirt and long black pants.

11. Upon inspecting their premises the owners found that a fly screen that covered both the window in which the child was showering and a further en suite window had been removed. Police located a screwdriver on top of a hot water system which the offender must have used to pry the flyscreens off. Upon reviewing the videotape from the camera it was found to contain images of SE, an older sister of GE, also showering in the bathroom at these premises. SE arrived home about 11pm on the night of 23 January 2008 and had a shower. That footage was filmed on disc number 1.

12. On 24 January 2008 police were granted a search warrant for 8 Belgravia Street Moree, the residence of the offender. He was given an opportunity to attend the search warrant with police, but declined. Police attended the residence though and executed the warrant. In the course of searching the lounge room area they located a DVD burner connected to the television. There was a lead connected to the DVD burner that had a connection capable of connecting to a video camera found in the possession of the offender. Contained inside the DVD burner was a DVD found to contain further footage of SE showering naked on a different occasion. She was obviously being filmed without her knowledge or consent. It appears as though the offender was copying the footage he had taken on his video camera and burning that footage directly on to the DVD.

Count 5

13. Upon searching the bedroom apparently occupied by Cemitis, police located a portable DVD player beside the bed. Police located a DVD in that player. It was found to contain various images of young girls in various situations. At the time these facts were prepared many of these girls had not been identified. The first chapter of the disc depicts a young girl aged about thirteen; she is in the shower completely naked being filmed without her knowledge or consent. That footage appears to have been filmed from outside looking through a bathroom window. The recording is marked as being recorded on 6 November 2005 at 9:16, although that cannot be verified as being the date on which it was recorded. That session goes for one minute and thirty-five seconds.

14. There is a second chapter containing images of a young teenage female lying in bed in her underwear. It is clearly being filmed without her knowledge and it appears to have been filmed from the outside through a bathroom window. I should also note the underwear is of a bikini kind and that during some of the filming she in fact is scratching herself in particular between her legs approaching from the back. The third chapter is footage filmed in the same bathroom as chapter 1 although it appears to be a different girl. It depicts a teenager getting changed or unchanged until fully naked and then entering the shower. It again is being filmed through the bathroom window from the outside, clearly without the knowledge or consent of the victim. It is dated 10 November 2005 and a time of 13:10 is marked on the footage which runs for one minute and six seconds.

15. Subsequent chapters contain footage of what appeared to be the same young girls in different settings on different occasions. These settings include images of a backyard swimming pool where girls are in their swimming costumes, apparently that footage taken from behind a fence. There is footage of the same girls walking along a public street, that appears to have been taken from a moving vehicle. There is also footage of the same girls playing in a backyard, see attached discs numbers 2 and 3 that are complete copies of the recovered files.

Count 4

16. Chapter 19 of that recovered disc contains footage of TSH aged thirteen showering in her residence in a surburban street in Moree. The footage shows in clear view the young girl naked in the shower. The footage is filmed on more than one occasion from the outside looking inward and clearly without knowledge or consent of the child. See attached disc 4 that contains images solely of TSh edited from discs 2 and 3. Police have spoken to the mother of that girl who informed them that she has been friends with the accused for a number of years, and he regularly attends her house.

17. All the images recovered by Police have been considered by the Australian Government Classification Board and refused classification under the Classification (Publications Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth). The relevant certificate was tendered in evidence and became part of exhibit A.

Objective Criminality
Count 1

18. Resisting a lawful arrest is a crime against the administration of justice. It can be, and in this case would have been, a preliminary step to the taking of the offender before a Justice to be charged. It is that charge which begins the criminal proceedings.

19. The offender initially exposed the blade of a knife in the Leatherman tool kit and threatened his would be arrester with the words, “Do you want to be stabbed?” It was the production of the knife that caused the young man to release the offender and he set off again. It was the “Do you want to be stabbed?” threat that was uttered as they proceeded along. There was also a biting, or an attempt to bite. This offender, of all offenders, ought to know that courts take a very dim view of the use of a mouth in attacking people by biting, simply because of the possibility of the transference of saliva, which may contain sexually transmitted diseases or other diseases. Such conduct causes tremendous anxiety, long-lasting over months, in victims until they are cleared by pathology tests. Given the seriousness of this offence, I am satisfied a discrete term of imprisonment is called for on its objective facts.

Counts 2 and 4

20. These offences constitute monumental privacy abuse of young females for sexual purposes. The privacy abuse constitutes the filming of them, perverting what would otherwise have been an innocent shower or changing clothes context into a sexual context for later enjoyment of the accused. While there is material on the discs that would not qualify as child pornography, the sexual context can be gathered from the number of images of young teenage girls filmed, the intimate situations in which they are filmed including periods of nakedness, the sexual areas of the body which form the focus of the lens and the substantial number of such images on the discs. The images taken on 23 January must be understood to form part of this collection, or intended for this collection probably more accurately.

21. The content of the material does not display sexual activity. Its sexual context is of the voyeur type, that is, the focus upon areas of sexual interest with a purpose of titillating sexual fantasies while some personal act of sexual activity such as masturbation occurs.

22. While there were many females unknowingly filmed, the number of such images that the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt, relating to child pornography, is more difficult to assess. The difficult arises because, with a number of subjects there is a difficulty determining whether the female who is naked or changing clothes is under sixteen. There are also some images where the children apparently under sixteen have been filmed, but the context in which they are being filmed does not constitute a sexual context. I am satisfied a number of children in the region of fifteen to twenty were filmed, who were under sixteen.

23. I am satisfied that they were filmed, not only in circumstances where the filming was unlawful, but also in circumstances where a prior offence was committed in order to be in a position to film them. For example, the removal of the fly screen, the entry onto enclosed premises. I accept that there is no evidence of trade in or swapping of images. The images have been stored, indeed some have been transferred to a second disc. That constitutes an aggravating feature, although its aggravation is perhaps more mooted because of the possess child pornography charge. The images were obtained unknown to the victim in circumstances where their privacy was seriously violated.

24. The accused knew several of his victims, and his capture of them on two occasions constitutes a breach of trust. On occasions he spotted a potential candidate and took steps to follow that candidate so as to ascertain her place of abode. I am satisfied that the swimming pool photographs are taken in a step along that path, to a potential further peep and pry episode in circumstances where those people may have been changing or showering.

25. Some of the offences were planned. Indeed, the filming which led to his arrest had been planned. He wore dark clothing beneath his SES overalls on a summers evening where wearing the overalls, one would have thought, would have been sufficient. He brought his video camera so that, in the event the workout with the SES ended early, he would be able to film. Clearly, these offences call for a salutary term of imprisonment.

26. The plea of guilty was entered on the day of the trial, but leave was subsequently sought to withdraw the plea. It is argued by the defence that it was reasonable for the defence to determine whether a certificate under the Classification (Publications Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, other than the “refused classification” was available. That is not a matter I need to determine when assessing the utilitarian value of the plea. There may well be matters, such as advice from counsel before a plea is entered, that are perfectly reasonable. The test for delay in terms of utilitarian value in a plea is not one of reasonableness, but rather one of existence.

27. To the extent that a plea is delayed, whether on reasonable or unreasonable grounds, if the plea is delayed the utilitarian value of the plea as being an early plea is thereby diminished. Those who have their pleas entered early, acknowledging their guilt early, would be disadvantaged as against those who claim this reasonable excuse or that reasonable excuse before entering a plea. The utilitarian value of one is clearly greater than the utilitarian value of the other.

28. In this case there is a further complication: an application was made to withdraw the plea. The application was refused, but the utilitarian value of the plea once admitted became compromised. In this case a minimal discount for the utilitarian value of the plea will be entered. It is a discount of ten per cent.

Count 5 Reviewed

29. I need to put in count 5 which I have not dealt with, but count 5 relates to the possession of the child pornography. There were, as I understand it, some eight discs of child pornography, but however many there were, what was possessed was a substantial number of persons under the age of sixteen, and others but I am particularly focusing on under the age of sixteen, for the later enjoyment of the accused. His evidence was frank: that he would use those images from time to time for purposes of masturbation. There was a portable DVD in the bedroom and that was where the items were stored. Such storage and such use must be overwhelmingly humiliating for the victims of this sort of offence. Again, it requires a term of imprisonment. In so saying, I accept that imprisonment is the harshest penalty known to the law in New South Wales.

Subjective Matters

30. I turn now to the subjective matters. I am both entitled and required to do that. Not only am I sentencing for the criminal offences, but I am also sentencing this offender for them. Each offender coming before the court varies from other offenders or who stand or who have stood for sentence. Circumstances personal to an offender may offer to a court some explanation and insight into the commission of these offences by him, or some reason why a more or a less sentencing outcome is appropriate.

Family, Background, Relationships

31. Cemitis’ father was Latvian, his mother German. He has an older half-sister who lives in Germany. They have never met but have conversed by phone on a couple of occasions. He has another sister, also older than he, who lives in Armidale. She is, so far as I can tell, his closest familial support. His parents were not close to each other or, it seems, to him. There was some discord in the family and some domestic violence. His parents both worked and left the offender often unattended. He grew up in Portland, Victoria.

Education, Skills and Employment

32. Cemitis did not enjoy school, he was bullied, he had few friends. His strongest memory of school appears to be when he was the subject of an address by the principal of the school to the whole school, using him as an example of a victim of bullying. The effect of that was to leave him feeling publicly humiliated, understandably so. He left in Year 10. He worked thereafter at a meat works for some eight years, was imprisoned for four years in circumstances to which I will come, then worked as a tyre fitter for seven years. Thereafter, having moved to Moree, he worked casually at cotton chipping and those sorts of things.

33. He had an interest in bike riding, aged twelve, and when he moved to New South Wales in 1997. He has experience working in air conditioning. His principal income stream for the past few years is unemployment benefits. To his credit, he has been committed for ten years with the SES volunteering, undertaking courses to become a team leader in that time, although he concedes he would prefer to remain a team member.

General Health

34. He has some general health issues, he is overweight. Aged two and a half he put his hand near a lawn mower blade which severed his thumb. Those managing his injury amputated the top of his index finger in an attempt to create a new thumb. There have been three operations of his hand. He experienced a fractured hip when he accidentally fell at the age of five, but as I understand it has completely recovered from that. He suffers from epilepsy which was controlled by medicine prior to his imprisonment. Whether it is still so controlled I know not. He reports a recurrence of seizure activity, but that has not been confirmed by Justice Health.

35. One seizure resulted in a severe back injury, which included multiple fractured vertebrae. As best I can tell, that seizure may have been around 2004 before his admission into custody. On the occasion of his arrest he had been knocked out, but that does not appear to have caused any permanent injury.

Mental Health

36. Cemitis experienced depression which is medicated. He sleeps some seventeen hours daily. Chris Lennings, an experienced forensic psychologist, opines that the offender does not present with any mental illness. Professor Greenberg opined there were no reasonable grounds to believe Cemitis suffers from mental illness or disorder. Nor, said Professor Greenberg, does he suffer from a developmental disability. However, Professor Greenberg does diagnose the following mental conditions:

• adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood
• voyeuristic disorder
• paedophilic disorder
• atypical paraphilic halophilic disorder

Psychosexual Issues

37. He had been the target of a sexual assault from a neighbour when he was a child. It would appear to have been an isolated incident on a ten-year-old which, the offender says, left no permanent issues for him. An uncle (?) apparently introduced him to masturbation, but Cemitis does not concede any sexual connection between that man and himself.

38. He has had six sexual partners across his life, but only one long term relationship of three and a half years that produced two children, one a daughter aged sixteen with whom he says he maintains some level of phone contact, and a son aged fourteen who I think may have disowned him, and who is showing signs of behavioural disorder.

39. For more than thirty years he has been “peeking” at females aged between eleven and twenty-one years. At age fourteen he recalls undressing a male and a female child between ages eight and ten. Police were called. His peeping began when he was seventeen or eighteen. At that time his targets were as young as seven or eight.

40. He developed a modus operandi which still has relevance to his most recent offending. He would study his subjects away from the home to work out their bedtime routine and then watch them from the outside of their home when the bedroom lights came on, as they changed into their pyjamas. This was associated with sexual arousal and masturbation. For the past fifteen years he has videotape this material and used it for later sexual stimulation. On occasions his victims include children of acquaintances. He reports that masturbating to the videos, once home, and additional excitement from fear of being discovered at a scene.

41. He has earlier Victorian convictions relating to the rape of a sixteen-year-old girl and the abduction of a twelve-year-old girl for sexual purposes, including a charged attempted rape. He claims a high and active libido and constant and troublesome rumination on sexual themes. He admits to an inability to relate to women, what I understand to be dysfunctional sexual relationships with them, and a need to discharge his impulses in deviant ways. He has been assessed by Dr Lennings as a high risk for relapse offender, although, says Dr Lennings, his risk is more likely to relate to peep and pry than to contact offences.

42. Against that assessment is a concession made by the offender to Professor Greenberg that he has had sexual fantasies of fondling teenage females, which are associated with masturbation since he was twenty. These teenage females are often fantasised as schoolgirls.

43. There is thoughtfulness to his predatory interest. In the rape charge in Victoria, he already knew where his then victim lived; he had followed her home. He had first met her a year or two earlier. He spied on her while standing outside her home. His kidnapping of the twelve-year-old girl occurred, he said, in circumstances where he did not know her, but where he followed a school bus in a taxi he was then driving. When the bus stopped and she alighted from the bus, he got her bag, put that in the taxi, and then she entered the taxi.

44. His sexual interest in young teenaged females is longstanding and to date untreated. He has attended treatment sessions, but never persevered with them. Notwithstanding Mr Jauncey’s submission to the contrary, I am satisfied he is at high risk of re-offending.

Drugs and Alcohol

45. He does not present with any overt drug or alcohol issues.

Attitude to Offence

46. He appears to be honest and brutally frank in discussing his criminal offending with Dr Lennings, Professor Greenberg and in evidence before me. Whether that is motivated by insight or some level of objective detachment is difficult to determine. For my part I prefer the latter view. I do so because when he was discussing, in records of interview, the kidnapping of the twelve-year-old schoolgirl he was also detached and objective:

• “I grabbed her legs and reached her over the back onto the floor, then shut the door and drove off”.
• “I bit her because she had her leg on the door and wouldn’t bring it in”.
• “She had her head out the window, waving to cars coming the other way”.

47. It would be open to those reviewing that interview to think that he was honest, frank and insightful, but once out of custody he resumed offending, and on his own version has been filming for fifteen years.

48. He has expressed disgust with himself, but elsewhere he says he cannot help himself. Contrition is only a mitigating factor when it points to prospects of rehabilitation. He says he is willing to do a sex offenders’ course, but that has not happened yet. There is nothing in his plea of guilty that suggests contrition.

Character and Criminal History

49. He has going as a positive for him his volunteering with SES over a ten year period. There is an earlier history of a reasonable work ethic.

50. He, however, brings to New South Wales a criminal history from Victoria, with a 1986 conviction for rape, burglary, kidnapping, attempted rape and other sexual matters for which he received eight years with a minimum of six years. Apparently with remissions he was released after four. It needs to be understood these sentences related to two victims: a 1985 rape of an adult and a 1986 attempted rape of a juvenile.

51. So far as I can tell there is no New South Wales criminal history.

Setting the Sentence

52. In setting the sentence there is a need for general deterrence; that was a given. The offences before me are not isolated instances of this conduct. Indeed, the date of the charges recognises a course of criminal conduct over a period. But the offender has been involved in videoing for fifteen years, and peeping and prying for thirty years. Thus, the sentence is one requiring a strong element of personal deterrence.

Applying the Discount

53. But for the plea of guilty, I would have set an overall sentence of eighteen months for the offence of threaten to use offensive weapon to hinder lawful apprehension. A ten per cent discount for the plea, rounded out, sees the overall sentence reduced by two months to one of sixteen months.

54. In respect of the two charges of produce child pornography, but for the plea of guilty I would have set sentences of four years’ imprisonment for each. Applying a ten per cent reduction and again rounding out, reduces the sentences by five months to three years and seven months.

55. But for the plea of guilty I would have set an overall sentence of three years for the possess child pornography offence. Applying the ten per cent discount reduces that sentence by four months to one of two years eight months.

Accumulation of Sentences

56. The sentences for the possession of child pornography will be made partly cumulative to the first count in the indictment of hinder lawful apprehension. The two produce child pornography charges will be concurrent with each other, but partly cumulative to the possess child pornography charges.

Special Circumstances

57. I find special circumstances for the following reasons: (1) because of the accumulation of sentences, (2) rehabilitation is better accomplished under supervision outside the gaol walls, (3) to do so places the emphasis of the sentence on personal deterrence whilst in the community.

Sentencing

58. Andrew Lamons Cemitis, I convict you that you on 23 January 2008 at Moree in the State of New South Wales did threaten to use an offensive weapon, namely a knife, with intent to hinder your lawful apprehension. You are sentenced to nine months minimum term to commence on the date of your incarceration, 23 January 2008, and to expire on 22 October 2008. The balance of seven months term expires on 22 May 2009.

59. In respect of count 5, that is, the possess child pornography at Moree on 23 January 2008, you are convicted. You are sentenced to a minimum term of two years to commence on 23 July 2008 and to expire on 22 July 2010. The balance of term of eight months will expire on 22 March 2011.

60. In respect of both counts 2 and 4, that between 1 December 2007 and 23 January 2008 at Moree you produced child pornography, and between 1 December 2007 and 23 January 2008 at Moree you did produce child pornography, you are convicted. In respect of those offences I set a non-parole period of two years and three months to commence on 23 October 2008 and to expire on 22 January 2011. I set a balance of term of one year and four months to expire on 22 May 2012.

61. In respect of the 166 matter, which is that you on 23 January did film SE for indecent purposes, I set a term of imprisonment of nine months to commence at the same time as counts 2 and 4, namely 23 October 2008 and to expire on 22 July 2009.

62. Mr Cemitis, I have to tell you this, that I cannot order your release as I usually do when I set a sentence of less than three years overall. The people who will determine whether you are being released are the Parole Board. You will have to convince them that their releasing of you will not endanger any member of the community, in your case, any young teenage girls. It is a matter for you entirely how you go about doing that, but I would suggest you enrol or seek to enrol in one of the sex offender programs so that you can demonstrate to the Parole Board that you are rehabilitating. You should also know that in the event that your parole is refused, there is a twelve-month wait until you can reapply for it. That means you would need to serve another twelve months of gaol. Your first eligible release date is 22 January next year. Is there any other matter, gentlemen?

23/11/2010 - Removed identification of residential address - Paragraph(s) 16