R v Chapman
[2013] VCC 2139
•14 October 2013
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Re-Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-11-01880
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| DAVID CHAPMAN |
---
JUDGE: | Her Honour Judge Sexton | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 29 August 2013 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 October 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Chapman | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2013] VCC 2139 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal Law
Catchwords: trafficking in drug of dependence – possession of drug of dependence – attempting to pervert the course of justice – possession of an unregistered hand gun.
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence: TES – 20months imprisonment wholly suspended and fined $1500.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms R. Sharp for Plea Ms D. Tang for Sentence | OPP |
| For the Accused | Mr M. Kowalski | Patrick Dwyer Barristers and Solicitors |
HER HONOUR:
1 David Chapman, on Indictment A12282422 (Indictment A), you have pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence, an offence which has a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment and to one charge of possession of a drug of dependence which has a maximum penalty in your case of 400 penalty units and/or five years' imprisonment.
2 On Indictment B12317739 (Indictment B), you have pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice which has a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment and to a charge of possession of an unregistered hand gun which has a maximum penalty of 600 penalty units and/or seven years' imprisonment.
3 You consented to this court dealing with a summary charge of possession of cartridge ammunition without a licence and pleaded guilty. That offence has a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units.
4 Application has been made for an intimate forensic sample to be taken from you and you have not objected to this. I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice, having regard to the seriousness of the offences, that in all the circumstances I order that an intimate forensic sample, namely saliva, be taken from you. The sample may be taken by a doctor or nurse, or other authorised person. A saliva sample is taken by wiping a swab inside your mouth. Although you have not objected, if you change your mind, I must inform you that police may use reasonable force to enable such a procedure to take place.
5 I also make the orders sought by the prosecution for disposal of the drugs and associated items and for forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition ,to which you have consented.
6 I proceed to sentence you on the basis of the prosecution opening which was read out in court and which is Exhibit A. A brief summary of your offending follows.
7 A Drug Task Force investigation in 2009 identified a criminal network of at least six people involved in the trafficking of several types of drugs. Physical and electronic surveillance was undertaken and a covert operative used.
8
On 16 November 2009, intercepted telephone calls between you and a Kelly Thornton disclosed that you were supplying Thornton with Xanax tablets which contain the drug alprazolam (Charge 1 on Indictment A). On
17 November, you and Thornton trafficked seven grams of methylamphetamine to a covert operative (Charge 2 on Indictment A).
9 After surveillance indicated that you and Thornton had a falling out in late February 2010, you were arrested on 1 March at your office and on 2 March 2010, a safe at your office was opened by police. They found approximately 26.4 grams of methylamphetamine (Charge 3 on Indictment A).
10 After you were charged with these offences, you were bailed to appear at your committal eventually listed for 8 August 2011.
11 On 4 August, you created a false letter purporting to be from a doctor which stated among other things that you would be unable to attend court for the committal. You faxed the letter to the solicitor then acting for you. She, in turn, provided it to a barrister briefed to apply for an adjournment of your committal on the basis of the letter, which was ultimately provided to the learned Magistrate who refused to adjourn your committal. A police officer telephoned your office and found you there. You also contacted an acquaintance to whom you provided the letter, with a view to him responding to any queries as if he were the doctor referred to in the letter. He declined to do so.
12 On 8 August, the first day of your committal, you created two more documents purporting to be from a different doctor. A different barrister appeared and relying on the false documentation, applied again for an adjournment. The same Magistrate again refused to adjourn the committal and issued a warrant for your arrest with a view to commencing the committal on 11 August. You appeared later on the 8th and produced a third letter from a doctor which the Magistrate did not act upon. Your committal was confirmed to commence on 11 August and you were bailed to that date.
13 On 11 August you again failed to appear. A third barrister appeared for you, your current counsel, and advised the same Magistrate that a text message had been received from you indicating that you were apparently in hospital.
14 The activity involving the creation of documents and the taking of steps in an attempt to adjourn the committal hearing of the drugs charges is the subject of Charge 1 on Indictment B.
15 A further warrant for your arrest was issued by the Magistrate on 11 August and you were arrested on 20 August at your office. A loaded, unregistered hand gun was found on a shelf in your office (Charge 2 on Indictment B). The summary charge relates to the container next to the gun which held ammunition.
16 You remained in custody on remand until the next committal date of 7 October 2011 when you were bailed to this court for trial.
17 All of these are serious offences, although the prosecution properly concedes that the drug charges are not the most serious examples. Thornton appears to have been a principal operator in the network and you seem to have been a participant whose trafficking activities fall below all of the other people involved.
18 The prosecution summary outlines the total sentences received by the others charged following the investigation into the drug network with which you were involved. I have not seen the sentencing remarks in each case, so I do not know what other factors were taken into account by each sentencing judge.
19 From the details with which I have been provided, I am satisfied that each faced more serious charges than you do, so that it is not realistic to attempt parity between them and you on the drug charges you face.
20 For example, although one person Trong Hau Nguyen pleaded guilty to only one charge, being a charge of trafficking, this involved 12 occasions totalling 89.2 grams of methylamphetamine. He was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months.
21 Thornton pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, three charges of trafficking simpliciter in respect of other drugs, a charge of handling stolen goods and a charge of dealing with the proceeds of crime, resulting in a total effective sentence of four years, with a non-parole period of two years. Thornton sold drugs to the covert operative on 13 occasions. You, together with Thornton, sold him drugs once.
22 By reference to all of the sentences of those in the network, I accept your counsel's submission that Thornton was at the top of the tree, that you and Thornton were associates in offending in respect to Charges 1, 2 and 3 on Indictment A and associates in respect of drug use, but were not true co-offenders.
23 With respect to the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, the prosecution also concedes that the offending is at the lower end. However, the prosecution concession does not ignore the fact that there are some aspects that mean it is not the least serious example of such an offence, as referred to in their submissions.
24 One aspect is that you were a legal practitioner, practising as a solicitor. As such, you were an officer of the court concerned in the administration of justice, with an overriding duty to the court, to the standards of your profession and to the public[1].
[1]Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191, 227 (Lord Reid), as quoted by the Chief Justice of Victoria, the Hon. Marilyn Warren AC in a speech at the Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium, Melbourne, 9 October 2009.
25 Further aspects are that your attempt to pervert the course of justice was prolonged over a week, involved preparation of false documentation provided to others who presented it to the court in good faith, and included the attempted recruitment of an acquaintance.
26 At the plea hearing, your counsel advanced an explanation for all of this offending behaviour supported by evidence called from Mr Jeffery Cummins, your treating psychologist and from a report of Professor David Copolov, your treating psychiatrist. It is appropriate to deal with this material in the context of your background.
27 You are now aged 45 years. You were a very good student and athlete at school in Melbourne, before undertaking your law degree at the Universities of Tasmania and Melbourne. You began a partnership in a law firm in 1996 in a south eastern Melbourne suburb, using the home you purchased in 1993 as collateral. You were in a long term relationship from 1998 which resulted in a brief period of marriage, with separation occurring in 2001. Around 2002, you began experimenting with a range of drugs, including crystal methylamphetamine.
28 In 2003, you were the subject of a professional misconduct matter and you attended on Mr Jeffery Cummins twice during that year. He diagnosed two disorders[2], including one which he concluded had been triggered by a number of "identifiable psycho-social stressors" which he did not specify in his report[3] or his evidence.
[2] Cyclothymic Disorder and Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct.
[3] Part of Exhibit 1.
29 In April 2004, you consulted Professor Copolov. According to Mr Cummins, you saw Professor Copolov more than 30 times between April 2004 and some time in 2009-2010, but it seems that there was a break between 2009 and late 2011.
30 Initially, Professor Copolov treated you for major depression, but in his report dated 12 April 2013[4] he states that within a year, it became clear that you suffered from Bipolar Mood Disorder II. In 2005, he prescribed for you a mood stabilising drug which he opines helped you considerably. What did not help you however was that the condition substantially interacted with what Professor Copolov describes as "intermittent and sometimes heavy recreational drug use, including methylamphetamine, to contribute to self-destructive behaviours which [you are] very remorseful about".
[4] Part of Exhibit 1.
31 From 2004, problems arose in the law partnership and in 2005/06, the partnership broke up. You had to sell your home to buy out your partner and apparently you were made bankrupt. Around the same time, you formed a new intimate relationship with a Ms Gendler which continued for some years.
32 In January 2007, your mother died from pancreatic cancer which deeply affected you. According to Mr Cummins' evidence, you reported to him and to Professor Copolov that you increased your use of crystal methylamphetamine when your mother died.
33 The partnership dispute resolved in 2007 and you sold the practice that year. You travelled overseas between late 2007 and early 2008, and on your return to Melbourne began working as an insolvency consultant in an office in your former business premises, which were leased to a commercial consultancy company. According to a director of that company, you worked as a solicitor under your own name and had a business called Actual Solutions.
34 You also worked with a man called Anthony Swords who ran a debt collection agency called Gatto Corporation. In the prosecution opening, you were described as being a registered legal practitioner working for a business called The Gatto Corporation and it was alleged that your co-accused Kelly Thornton was employed by you in this business.
35 It was in this context that you and Thornton committed the crimes the subject of Charges 1 and 2 on 16 and 17 November 2009.
36 From 2001, you had been in another long term relationship with a Ms Markin which continued off and on until her death from a rapidly progressive brain tumour. You nursed Ms Markin who died on 28 March 2010.
37 Four weeks before her death, you had been arrested for the first time on 1 March, and were found with the drugs the subject of Charge 3 in your possession on 2 March.
38 According to Mr Cummins' evidence, you reported to him that in the weeks leading up to Ms Markin's death, you engaged in heavy use of the drug, up to three and a half grams per week. Professor Copolov states in his report that during the period of November 2009 to March 2010, you discontinued your mood stabilising medication and he thought this was possibly under the influence of Ms Markin, who apparently had concerns about psycho-tropic medication.
39 According to his report, you [later] told him you felt you needed to rely on methylamphetamines to enable you to cope with the stresses you were facing. Apart from the effect on you of another person close to you deteriorating in health and then passing away, you were apparently also stressed about your financial situation. You told Professor Copolov that amphetamines tended to normalise you and assist you to gain better control of your life with a view to working your way out of financial difficulties.
40 As your counsel put it, the criminal activity in Charge 1 on Indictment A in November 2009 was in effect one user of drugs giving drugs to another user, not trafficking in the wider sense and that the alprazolam was apparently to assist in coming down after methylamphetamine use.
41 The criminal activity in Charge 2 on the next day was conceded to be serious, but it was put that in the context of the big operation under investigation, only one transaction was made between you and the covert operative and this all occurred in a period where you were highly addicted yourself. With respect to Charge 3 on Indictment A, in a very reasonable concession on your behalf, it was said that the drugs found in your safe were not only for your personal use so that the higher maximum penalty applies.
42 I accept that the trafficking in both instances was in effect to support your addiction. This allows for some weight to be given to your addiction as a mitigatory feature for those charges.
43 Your counsel submitted that if you were to be sentenced only for the charges on Indictment A, although serious charges, they were not so serious as to prevent the imposition of a suspended sentence. However, he rightly conceded that these offences cannot be looked at in isolation.
44 When it comes to Indictment B, while an attempt to pervert the course of justice is a serious offence and made more serious by your duty to the court and to the law, it was put that you were never going to achieve more than a delay to the next hearing date, you did not seek to benefit from that delay, for example by fleeing the jurisdiction, and that you were a desperate man in the throes of addiction, putting your head in the sand about the committal hearing.
45 As for the charges relating to the loaded firearm and ammunition, it was put that it was present in your office because you were feeling suicidal, an explanation you also gave to Professor Copolov. I accept these submissions.
46 Professor Copolov expresses the opinion in his report that it was during a mixed hypomanic/depressed phase of your illness that the offending occurred. Mr Cummins states in his first report dated 7 May 2013[5] his view that at the time of the offending in 2009, 2010 and 2011, you were suffering from the bipolar mood disorder.
[5] Part of Exhibit 1.
47 In his evidence, Mr Cummins stated that your mental health had ebbed and flowed significantly, but you had suffered from severe bipolar disorder since 2003. You had self medicated with illicit drugs and/or decreased your use of prescribed medication, and both Mr Cummins and Professor Copolov had observed the results, seeing you in the hypomanic phase.
48 Mr Cummins gave evidence that with this sort of disorder, most of the time judgment is compromised to some extent, to a greater extent when the person is depressed or hypomanic. He said in cross-examination that there is no dispute that you knew what you were doing when you created the false documents in August 2011, but he stated that the very doing of these things by you was indicative of mental ill health. He confirmed that you were not taking the prescribed medication in August 2011 and that you resumed your attendance on both of your treating mental health professionals after you were released on bail in October 2011.
49 Your counsel submitted that your lack of judgment caused by your disorder during the offending period reduces your moral culpability, and will make imprisonment more burdensome for you. He submitted that your drug addiction is also a mitigating feature, because the decision to take drugs was made in the context of a decision making process affected by mental ill health and the reports of your treating mental health professionals show that you were already developing a lack of insight as a result of your disorder, rather than from your drug taking, before the offending occurred.
50 I accept that you were not taking your prescribed mood stabilising drug during the offending period and that as a result, you would have suffered from the symptoms of your disorder and your mental health would have deteriorated during that time. I take that into account as part of the circumstances of the offending on both indictments and further find that all of your offending was causally connected to your mental health impairment. I am satisfied that your judgment was compromised by your mental ill health, so that your condition reduces the moral culpability of your offending conduct and makes denunciation less likely as a sentencing objective. However, as you were also heavily abusing illicit drugs in that period, it was appropriately conceded that the reduction in your moral culpability and the effect on denunciation is somewhat limited.
51 I accept that your mental health is a longstanding issue for you which requires ongoing management and that the existence of your diagnosed disorder may make imprisonment more burdensome for you, than for someone that does not suffer from bipolar mood disorder.
52 It seems that there is a family history of mental ill health. Your father suffered a nervous breakdown in November 2001 and received significant treatment in the following 12 months.
53 You apparently had a very supportive relationship with him, particularly regarding this offending, including financial support. However, he too has passed away, in January 2012, as a result of complications from surgery for bowel cancer.
54
Returning to your background and personal circumstances, apart from time spent with Ms Markin, you apparently continued your relationship with
Ms Gendler until you met the woman who became your second wife. In December 2010, you married Ms Vesna Chapman. Both Ms Chapman and Ms Gendler visited you while you were on remand. Your marriage to
Ms Chapman has ended and since about March 2013, you have had a new partner, a Ms Allie, who is said to act as a stabilising influence in your life and who was present in court to support you, along with some close friends.
55 I have not yet mentioned your sister. She is aged about 41 years and has Down syndrome. She is in permanent care and apparently her health is deteriorating to the extent that she now has a life expectancy of no more than ten years. I accept that you have always played a role in her life and with the death of both parents, that is now a constant role, and you have a close loving relationship.
56 I heard from Simon McGregor, a friend since you were teenagers, who worked with you as a solicitor initially and you later bought his father's legal practice. He said that you always knew you would be responsible for your sister when your parents died and you have always maintained close contact with her. Although Mr McGregor saw less of you at the time of the offending, he increased his contact with you on learning of your situation and eloquently described how hard it was to believe that the grandiose drug affected person he saw in the cells at the Melbourne Assessment Prison was you. Over time he has seen gradual improvement and says he is seeing again, more of the person he previously knew. Mr McGregor also described the new relationship with Ms Allie as bringing out the best in you. He also spoke of your understanding of the gravity of your offending and your remorse for it.
57
Other friends provided testimonials. From them, and from the evidence of
Mr McGregor, I accept that your reputation in the community before your offending was very good. I accept too that there have been significant contributions made by you to the community. I refer in particular to pro bono work you did as a solicitor, to your presidency of the Bentleigh Traders’ Association and membership of Rotary International and to your work as a trustee of a charitable trust.
58 You have minor previous convictions for stealing and assault which I accept are of little relevance, as the offences occurred many years ago during your university days in 1987. Then there is the professional misconduct matter in 2003 about which I have few details, with only a reference to that matter involving false documents made by the prosecutor in her reply.
59 I was told by your counsel that there was a matter pending in relation to the alleged removal by you of documents relating to your father's estate. This morning I was informed that on 10 September 2013, in the Magistrates' Court, you pleaded guilty and were convicted and fined $2,500 in respect of dishonest handling of these documents.
60 It was apparently a condition of your release on bail in October 2011 that you attend Mr Cummins and undertake urine drug screens. Exhibit 2 is a bundle of the test results which show that there were positive results for amphetamines between December 2011 and January 2012. This coincides with the period of your father’s illness and death. Mr Cummins was aware of this relapse and advises there have been no positive results since.
61 You also suffered a deterioration in your mental health in mid 2012, but apparently this was satisfactorily dealt with by an increase in your prescribed medication. Mr Cummins is of the view that while your mental health has been relatively stable over the last few months, you still require treatment and you are committed to that. He said in his evidence that you are genuinely shocked by your circumstances, but you are highly intelligent and very proud and so are very embarrassed and ashamed about both your mental health diagnosis and your offending.
62 Your current situation is that you are being treated by Mr Cummins twice a month and Professor Copolov monthly. You have recently been discharged from bankruptcy and Mr Cummins reports that to the best of his knowledge, you are no longer using illicit drugs. Your practicing certificate was cancelled after your arrest in August 2011. You are caught up in yet another protracted legal battle, this time concerning your father's estate and both medical professionals see this as a continuing major stressor for you with you having had some mental health lapses.
63 On the basis of the material I have received about your past character, your mental health diagnosis and treatment, your remorse and the vital support you have from friends, I am satisfied that your chances of rehabilitation are good. I am also satisfied that the likelihood of you re-offending is relatively low for the same reasons and also because you have served 47 days in custody on remand and that is a real incentive for you to remain offence free in the future.
64 Apart from the matters I have already referred to in mitigation, I also take into account the fact that you have pleaded guilty. Although it was not a plea entered at the earliest stage for either indictment, there is still a utilitarian value to your plea in each case, as the community has been saved the time and cost of at least two trials. I can tell you that the sentence I intend to impose is less than would have been imposed, had you been found guilty of these offences after trials had been conducted. I also accept that the pleas in each instance reflect your remorse for your offending.
65 I must also take into account matters of deterrence. By my sentence of you, I must seek to deter you from re-offending. Even though I have found the likelihood of you re-offending is relatively low, and that your judgment was affected by your mental health disorder, I consider that there is still a need for specific deterrence. Further, despite the moderating effect of your mental health disorder, I consider that in matters of drug trafficking and attempting to pervert the course of justice, there remains a significant need to deter others by my sentence. For an offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, there is also a need for the court to demonstrate a denunciation, although I have stated that is less of a sentencing objective in your case.
66 I was provided with two cases dealing with the production of forged medical reports to a court in order to delay proceedings. The earlier case, Briggs,[6] was an appeal against conviction and sentence after a trial on the sole charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The later case Fincham,[7] was a Crown appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence imposed after a plea of guilty on two charges of defrauding the Commonwealth and two charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice.[8]
[6] [2000] VSCA 234
[7] [2008] VSCA 16
[8] At [14], the maximum penalty is stated to be five years’ imprisonment.
67 In Briggs, which was heard years before the principles in Verdins[9] were laid down, it was contended that the sentencing judge had been in error in not accepting the submission made on behalf of the applicant, that he had been suffering from a psychiatric disorder when he committed the offence and that the commission was attributable in some degree to the disorder.
[9] [2007] VSCA 102
68 The court upheld the appeal, and the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment with a recognisance release after serving two months was varied, so that the applicant was not returned to custody, having served one month and been released on bail. The applicant was suffering from a major depressive illness before and during the offending and had no prior convictions, although there was a subsequent plea of guilty to 89 charges of making a false statement.
69 In Fincham, the court found the wholly suspended sentence was disproportionate to the seriousness of the crimes. Because of the principle of double jeopardy, the original sentences and orders for cumulation were not interfered with, but the applicant was ordered to serve 12 months' imprisonment before release on recognisance. There was genuine evidence of the applicant's physical ill health, he had a relevant criminal history for dishonesty, and the forged medical reports had been used to successfully adjourn his trial on three occasions over many months and in an attempt to have his prosecution discontinued, in addition to the use of fraudulent documents in respect of the other two charges.
70 There is a need to exercise care when seeking to draw assistance from other cases, but they may nevertheless provide some guidance.
71 In this case, the prosecutor submitted that a term of imprisonment is warranted on the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice and referred to Paragraph 24 of Fincham in support of that submission. Further, the prosecutor submitted the offending in August 2011 occurred when you were on bail for the drugs charges, which made the offending more serious. She also referred to your duty to the court and to the pending dishonesty matters and it was in the context of these submissions that a term of imprisonment is warranted that reference was made to the professional misconduct charges involving false documents. The prosecutor put forward a range of 18 months to two years as a head sentence, with a non-parole period of 12 to 18 months.
72 Your counsel submitted that the penalty I impose should facilitate your rehabilitation, and that you were reclaimable. It was submitted that your mental health issue will affect the way you serve a term of imprisonment, and that although reduced contact with your sister if you were to be imprisoned was conceded not to constitute exceptional circumstances, it was submitted that there would be a burden on you should you be unable to maintain that contact.
73 Ultimately it was submitted that there was sufficient mitigating evidence to be found in your mental health diagnosis and your drug addiction that you should serve no further time in custody than the 47 days served on remand, with the prosecution range allowing for such a disposition. It was further submitted that if I did not accede to that submission, that a merciful disposition be imposed, tempering requirements for denunciation and deterrence, so as to not unduly hamper your rehabilitation.
74 I find that your case more closely aligns with Briggs than with Fincham. I have accepted that you were suffering from a psychiatric disorder before and during the offending and the offending was attributable, in large degree, to the disorder. Unlike Fincham, your attempts to delay your court proceedings were unsuccessful. You have no relevant prior convictions, as I have disregarded the 1987 matters due to their age, and the professional misconduct matter as I have been given no details about it. You do have a relevant subsequent matter.
75 Taking into account all the factors I have referred to, I have decided to accede to your counsel's submissions. While the only appropriate sentence on the charges of trafficking and attempt to pervert the course of justice is a term of imprisonment, I am satisfied that a suspended sentence adequately manifests the required level of denunciation by the court of your conduct in that offending, provides adequate deterrence given that is moderated and adequately reflects the gravity of the offences. I think there is little risk of you committing an offence punishable by imprisonment while your sentence is suspended.
76 Stand up please Mr Chapman.
77 The purpose of imposing a sentence of imprisonment is to indicate how serious these offences are. The purpose of suspending it is to allow you to demonstrate your commitment to your rehabilitation.
78 I will make the formal orders in a moment. I intend to sentence you to a total of 20 months' imprisonment with respect to those charges. The whole of that term will be suspended for two years. During the period of suspension, you must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment. If you do, you will be brought back before me and be ordered to serve the term of imprisonment. So Mr Chapman do you understand what will happen if you commit another offence while you are on a suspended sentence?
79 OFFENDER: I do Your Honour.
80 HER HONOUR: For Charge 3 on Indictment A, Charge 2 on Indictment B and of course the summary charge, monetary penalties will be imposed.
81 You are sentenced as follows.
82 For Indictment A [12282422]:
83 On Charge 1 trafficking in a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
84 On Charge 2, trafficking in a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.
85 On Charge 3, possession of drug of dependence, you are convicted and fined $1,500.
86 For Indictment B [12317739]:
87 On Charge 1, attempting to pervert the course of justice, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment.
88 On Charge 2, possession of an unregistered handgun, you are convicted and fined $2,000. On the summary charge of possession of cartridge ammunition without a licence, you are convicted and fined $400.
89 The sentence on Charge 1 on Indictment B is the base sentence. I direct that two months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 on Indictment A, and four months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 on Indictment A be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 1 on Indictment B and on each other. That makes a total effective sentence of 20 months' imprisonment. I order that the whole of that sentence be suspended for a period of two years.
90 In the event that it is necessary to revisit this sentence, I note that you have served 47 days in custody.
91 If you had not pleaded guilty, but had been found guilty of all the offences after a trial, or trials, the total sentence I would have imposed is four years, with a minimum of two years' imprisonment.
92 I have made the ancillary orders.
93 MR KOWALSKI: As Your Honour pleases. Your Honour in relation to the monetary penalties, sorry but my client is in no position to pay that within the time, I'd ask that there be a stay 90 days.
94 HER HONOUR: Yes I will order a stay of 90 days for payment of the fines and thereafter an instalment plan can be instituted if necessary.
95 MR KOWALSKI: As Your Honour pleases.
96 HER HONOUR: Yes, does counsel have any questions?
97 MS TANG: No Ma'am.
98 HER HONOUR: All right thank you very much to counsel for their assistance. Mr Chapman may be released from the dock.
99 MR KOWALSKI: - Your Honour must specify that he attend the police station within 48 hours for the swab.
100 HER HONOUR: That is in the body of the orders which are here.
101 MR KOWALSKI: Sorry I've created more work for no reason.
102 HER HONOUR: It must be in a period of four weeks commencing 28 days after the day of sentence, or once any instituted conviction appeal is finally determined. So that is in the body of the order which I can hand down. Yes Mr Chapman can be released from the dock. Thank you.
- - -
0
0
0