R v Forsberg (a pseudonym)
[2011] VCC 2146
•17 February 2011
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised |
AT SHEPPARTON
CRIMINAL DIVISION
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| GORDON ELIS FORSBERG (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINNEY | |
WHERE HELD: | Shepparton | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 25 January 2011 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 17 February 2011 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Forsberg (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2011] VCC 2146 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: Incest, Indecent Act
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr T. Lynch | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr R. Willcox (at plea) Mr A Coote (at sentence) | Camerons Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Gordon Elis Forsberg[1], you have pleaded guilty to nine charges on indictment number A12288375, comprising three charges of incest and six charges of committing an indecent act.
[1] A pseudonym
2 They were all committed upon your step-daughter. Charges 1 to 3, the incest charges and Charge 7, one of the indecent act charges, are laid on what is referred to as a representative basis. The balance of the charges are laid on an individual basis. You have admitted two prior convictions.
3 The charges of incest are punishable by a maximum term of 25 years imprisonment. The charges of indecent act are punishable by a maximum term of ten years imprisonment.
4 Mr Lynch, who prosecuted this matter on behalf of the Director, opened the plea to me on 25 January of this year, in accordance with a written summary of prosecution opening.
5 That opening was an agreed summary. The document was marked as Exhibit A on the plea, and in the circumstances I incorporate that exhibit into my reasons for sentence. This makes it unnecessary for me to descend to the full detail of your serious offending. I do though briefly set out your criminality.
6 Your victim was Izabelle Blom[2]. She was born on 3 December 1998. Your date of birth is 14 October 1962. You are 48 years of age. And you were the step-father of Izabelle, having married her mother, Carmen[3].
[2] A pseudonym
[3] A pseudonym
7 Charge 1, as I have indicated, is laid on a representative basis. It involves the introduction of your tongue into the vagina of your step child. The first instance, and hence the subject of this count, occurred when your victim was seven years of age.
8 On a date undetermined in that year, that is in the year from 3 December 2005 until 2 December 2006, you woke Izabelle from her sleep. You dragged her into your bedroom. You forced her onto the bed. You then removed her clothing. You spread her clothes. You introduced your tongue into her vagina. This continued, despite her attempts to push you away. As I say, she was seven years of age.
9 This then led on to the introduction of your penis into her mouth, which was the first such instance of that form of penetration, and accordingly embraced by Charge 2 on the indictment.
10 The summary of prosecution opening that I referred to, at paragraph 4 sets out the other occasions where you have introduced your tongue into Izabelle's vagina, occurring on a regular basis, with seven specific instances actually referred to in the VATE transcript.
11 Charge 2, as I have said, involves incest, arising out of the introduction of your penis into the mouth of your step-child. Again, that charge is laid on a representative basis.
12 The first such instance of such penile/oral penetration, and hence the subject of Charge 2, is that which I have referred to a short time ago, as occurring at the same time as the first act of introduction of your tongue into Izabelle's vagina.
13 It follows then that your victim was seven years of age when this second form of penetration occurred. Paragraph 5 of the summary provides reference to the various occasions and the level of frequency. Charge 3 is also laid on a representative basis. It is a count relating to the introduction of your penis into the vagina of Izabelle Blom, your step-child.
14 Paragraph 6, in that written summary of prosecution opening, points to the frequency and referred off to other paragraphs in the opening, as demonstrating the nature and the frequency of this activity.
15 There are 11 specific events, themselves, that are identified in the VATE transcript. The first such occasion, and hence the subject of Charge 3, was on 4 December 2007, when you entered Izabelle's bedroom when she was asleep. You took her to your bedroom and there you introduced your penis into her vagina. That act continued, despite her attempting to kick you away, and her complaints that it was hurting.
16 Izabelle was nine years of age at the time that you committed this full act of penetration.
17 That form of penetration, together with the other two forms of incest alleged, continued up until 21 August 2010, at which point you were discovered in a compromising position by your wife.
18 She then immediately reported her observations to the Shepparton Sexual Offences and Child Abuse unit. Charges 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 on this indictment involved individual acts, summarised in that written document, that is the summary of prosecution opening at paragraphs 10, 11, 14, 20 and 22, respectively.
19 Again, it is not necessary for me to descend to the full detail of that individual activity, but I do set out in brief form, a summary.
20 Charge 4, involved your ejaculation onto the pubic bone and abdomen of your victim, and that is what she was, your victim, when she was nine years of age.
21 Charge 5, was the same activity when she was ten years of age. Charge 6, the same activity when she was between ten and 11 years of age, as per paragraph 14.
22 Charge 8 involved ejaculation in her presence into a white coloured towel, as per paragraph 20 of the summary, and Charge 9 was the final act of withdrawal of your penis and then ejaculation onto her pubic bone and lower abdomen on 21 August 2010, the date that you were discovered.
23
Charge 7 is one of indecent act, laid on a representative basis.
On approximately six occasions between 3 December 2009 and 7 August 2010, you invited Izabelle into your bed to watch pornography whilst her mother was at work. See paragraph 17.
24 As I have indicated, this various activity embraced by these charges, ceased on 21 August 2010 as a result of your being discovered in a compromising position in your step-daughter's bedroom.
25 It follows that your offending spanned over four years, where your victim's age ranged from seven to 11 years of age.
26 Unsurprisingly, your wife reported her suspicions to the Shepparton Sexual Offences and Child Abuse unit on 21 August 2010. You were asked to attend at the Shepparton Police Station, where you were arrested and later interviewed in relation to these allegations.
27 You denied any impropriety. You denied any act of sexual penetration or ejaculation. You denied any act of indecency. You did admit that you had been found in Izabelle's bedroom, but sought to explain that away in an innocent fashion. You told countless lies to the police.
28 You were charged with incest and you were remanded to appear at the Shepparton Magistrate's Court on 23 August of last year, and further remanded after that date.
29 An intimate sample was obtained, a forensic sample, that is to say. That was analysed. Your DNA profile was obtained. This evidence provided the strongest evidence available against you, in terms of DNA analysis of spermatozoa discovered on the medical examination of your step-daughter on 21 August 2010. The case against you was an overwhelming one.
30 You have been in custody since 22 August 2010. I will be required to make a s.18 declaration to take into account that period as part of the sentence that will be imposed upon you.
31 This matter resolved at the committal mention hearing heard on 7 December of last year.
32 Your counsel readily conceded that this was a serious example of a serious crime, that is the crime of incest given the age of the complainant and the protracted nature of the interference and the varying forms of penetration. He referred also to the presence of representative counts.
33 It has had a most significant impact, as is clear from an examination of the victim impact materials presented to me. Indeed, these were read by the prosecutor in the course of the plea hearing, and make for difficult reading for any person.
34 Exhibit B comprises those victim impact statements involving, as they did at the time, a statement from Izabelle's mother, Carmen Forsberg, Izabelle's brother, Milton[4], and of course, one from Izabelle, herself.
[4] A pseudonym
35
I recently raised my concerns with the prosecutor about the way in which
I should regard the statement of Milton. Upon reflection, though disclosing perfectly understandable sentiments of hurt and confusion, I am not prepared to act on the victim impact statement of Milton. I accept that courts should not place an unduly narrow construction on the interpretation of the word "victim", but ultimately I am not satisfied that it is appropriate or safe for me to treat Milton as a victim under the Act. See R v Miller 1995 2 VR 348.
36 Carmen Forsberg, in her victim impact statement, states the following, and it is not my intention to read out the entirety of her statement. I have read it since the day of the plea on more than one occasion.
37 She states and I quote, "The crime committed against my daughter by Gordon Forsberg, it hurt me in so many ways that I don't know where to begin. I'm currently experiencing flashbacks of the events and suffer from nightmares and lack of sleep. I constantly replay the day I became aware of the crime over and over in my head. I'm constantly asking 'Why?' 'Why me?' 'Why my family?' 'What did I do to deserve this?' I'm no longer able to trust people like I did before. My children are also afraid.' "
38 Later in the statement she returns to these themes. I quote, "I feel an overwhelming frightening pain as if my heart is actually broken. It's hard to find the words to explain the terrible impact and my feelings of having been a total failure as a parent because of his manipulation and lies."
39 Later in the statement she goes on to say, and I quote, "The impact of this has not only been mental and emotional, but financial, as well. We've gone from a two income family to a single income family, with substantial debt and no child support. The anger inside me is a like a burning fire towards him, due to the trust that I gave him. I feel that Izabelle and I don't have a normal mother/daughter relationship, as he took this away from us."
40 Later in the statement, Ms Forsberg says the following, "What I don't, and I will never understand, is that someone that you trust, loved and care for, can take the innocence away from a seven year old girl, who's never done anything wrong, except for being a spirited, free innocent girl. I found myself with a lot of anger inside me. It's like a burning fire raging. And as for myself, I find that I cannot trust men around my children, as I fear for their safety and well-being. My relationship between myself and my children is distant, due to his lies and manipulation. And I fear it will be never be how it was meant to be."
41 As I say these are only a portion of the sentiments expressed by your wife in relation to the impact of your crimes upon her, and of course, upon her daughter.
42 Izabelle describes being annoyed because you called her a liar. She describes in her victim impact statement a sense of worry, of confusion, of not knowing who knows and who does not know of these events. She has had difficulty concentrating on school work amidst this setting, which is hardly surprising, and difficulty, she describes, going to asleep as a result of having nightmares, nightmares about you.
43 She says the following, and I quote, "He hurt my family. Like my grandpa was crying one night and my mum was also crying, the way I've never seen her cry."
44 She describes feeling guilty because, and I quote, "I didn't tell mum that it was happening. If I told anyone I thought he will hurt my older brother, Milton."
45 She describes the feelings, thus, "I'm glad he's gone, that I'm getting treated the way other people have been, and it makes me normal."
46 She concludes her victim impact statement by saying, "I feel horrified because I didn't realise how much damage he had done until now, and he called me a liar."
47 The "he", Mr Forsberg, is you, and you have done these things to those that you loved and had a duty to protect. So it is that your crimes have had a significant and lasting impact upon one you had a duty to love and to protect, as well as her mother, your wife.
48 I turn now to your background, which was stated in some detail in the course of a psychologist's report that was tendered and marked as Exhibit 1. Again, it makes it unnecessary for me to descend to the full detail of your background.
49 You are, I am told, of Aboriginal extraction and were born in New South Wales, but have no memory of living there.
50
Your father is still alive, but is retired and lives in Tweed Heads. He was,
I was told, a circus clown and also drove trucks. Your mother died about
12 years ago. She was described in the course of the plea as a full-time mother. You are the second oldest of seven children, with one older brother, two younger brothers and three younger sisters.
51 I was told that one of your brothers died, having been struck by a motor vehicle in 1999. The other siblings are scattered throughout Australia and you see really only one of your younger sisters.
52
Your parents had separated when you were very young, and all of the children went to live with her in Melbourne and in Ararat.
Your mother re-married and you then lived with your mother and step-father. You had a good relationship with your step-father.
53
You were educated up to Year 9 at Ararat Tech. You repeated that year.
The family, at that point, then moved to Melbourne, I was told. You went to a Technical School, where you did Year 10 on two occasions. You had difficulty and still have difficulty reading and writing. The psychological report of David Ball describes you as being functionally illiterate and innumerate.
54 You were described in the course of the plea as an average student, with no social or discipline issues. Following departure from school, you went on to work in a department store. You worked as a truck jockey there for about two years and then you did two years working as a tyre fitter. You had a number of other driving jobs, and you were employed right up until your arrest, on these charges, as a truck driver for a local freight company, where you had been employed for about the last seven years.
55 I was told in the course of the plea that you married your first wife, Cathleen[5], in 1994, she being ten years your junior. That marriage was of short duration with no children produced.
[5] A pseudonym
56 You met Carmen Forsberg in about 1999, lived together and then married in 2006. When you met Carmen she had two children, Izabelle and Milton, from a previous relationship. You married in 2006, and there then followed two children born of that relationship, Oddlin[6], who is now seven and Elselill[7], who is now six.
[6] A pseudonym
[7] A pseudonym
57 The marriage effectively concluded on that day that your wife came into your step-daughter's bedroom and found you in that most disturbing position.
58 You have some continued family support, provided by your younger sister, who has, I am told, visited you on a regular basis, whilst you have been held in custody.
59 You have never been in custody before, and I have regard to that fact.
60 You have admitted two prior convictions, which have no relevance, at all, to my task, as I made clear in the course of submissions, placed before me. They are each of them very old matters of no relevance in a case such as this.
61 In the course of this plea, your counsel emphasised the fact of your guilty plea. He submitted that you had to derive some significant benefit from that stance. He referred to the report of David Ball, marked as Exhibit 1 on the plea, as providing some guarded optimism as to your future prospects.
62 What that report makes clear is that you have virtually no insight into your offending or its impact, though you were clearly aware at the time that it was wrong.
63 Perhaps the reading of the victim impact statements in this case may, I say, may have given to you a glimmer of the profound breach of trust involved in the commission of these crimes, and the massive impact caused by them.
64 Upon examination, by the psychologist, there was no evidence of any mental illness or impairment. You were assessed as being of reasonably low intelligence, though no formal testing was conducted. As Mr Ball states, referring to you, "He lacked insight into his offending, generally lacking insight into his own psychological functioning."
65 Later in the report, Mr Ball says the following, "He reported learning difficulties with reading and writing and he's functionally illiterate. He presents as being functionally innumerate and said that he can add and subtract simple double digit numbers and has to write the sums down."
66 Further on in the report, Mr Ball states the following, "When I asked Mr Forsberg to explain his behaviour he was at a loss to do so. He expressed poor insight into his offending behaviour. When I pressed him for a further explanation, he said, 'I don't know.' He said that he did not coerce or force her into having sex with him, and that she was a willing participant. When I queried Mr Forsberg as to how a girl aged seven or eight willingly participates in having sex with her step-father, he said, 'I don't know.' "
67
Mr Ball was satisfied that you satisfied the DSM-IV criteria for paedophilia.
He then detailed the risk assessment in a case such as this, which includes an assessment of the fact that this offending occurred over a lengthy period of time, and continued in the clear knowledge that it was wrong.
68 Of concern is your lack of insight into your offending behaviour and your diminished capacity for victim empathy. This is said to stand as the key factor in your offending, and with those factors in mind you present in the assessment of Mr Ball as a moderate to high risk of re-offending in the community. That risk might be lowered by intensive and structured sex offender treatment programs catering for your specific needs.
69
There was very little else that was or could be said by way of mitigation in this case. Reliance was made, as I have said, on the fact of your guilty plea. I do take into account your guilty plea, and the stage at which it was entered, as
I am obliged to. I treat it as a reasonably early guilty plea, despite your protestations of innocence upon interview by the police.
70 I give you a significant benefit for this plea, recognising that it is of a significant weight in a matter such as this. Witnesses, in particular, your step-daughter, your step-son, your ex-wife, Ms Forsberg, as well as other young witnesses in this case, have been spared the need and the negative experience of giving evidence before a court.
71 In a matter such as this, that is a sexual matter, you must be rewarded with a material and a significant reduction in sentence. The community has been saved the time, the cost and the effort associated with a contested criminal trial. I make clear that the sentence I impose upon you will be significantly less than would otherwise have been the case, had you run a contested trial and been found guilty before a jury.
72 Unsurprisingly, given the finding as to lack of insight as referred to in the report of Mr Ball, your counsel did not submit that I should find any level of remorse. He suggested that it was not open to him to make a submission as to the presence of remorse, and to do so would have potentially led me into error.
73 I am, accordingly, not able to find that you have any remorse for this activity. That, of course, is not a matter of aggravation. It is merely the absence of a matter that is sometimes present in a mitigatory sense in other cases. It is not so present in this case.
74 It was submitted that this was your first time in custody. As I have said I do have regard to that fact. However, your offending is such that only a substantial term of imprisonment can be imposed in the circumstances, a fact that was readily conceded by your counsel.
75 Your counsel referred to the existence of there being some family support from your sister. This can only be a good thing, it seems to me, and I do have regard to it.
76 The principles which govern sentencing for crimes of this nature are very firmly established. Offending such as this is viewed very seriously by the courts. The approach was explained by Hedigan AJA in R v Ware [1997] 1 VR 647, citation given.
"A society which fails to protect its children from sexual abuse by adults, particularly by those entrusted with their care is degenerate. The offence of incest is particularly erosive of human relations and cast doubts on the assumption that parents are natural trustees of the welfare of their children.
It ought to be unnecessary to recount the morbid features of incest, the most prominent of which include the exploitation by the strong will of the adult of the weaker will of the child; the physical and psychological subordination of the child to the perverted indulgences of the adult, the gross breach of trust placed in the offender by the victim and the community and the irreparable fundamental damage to the victim."
77 Your conduct here spanned a number of years and a variety of forms of penetration, as evidenced by the representative basis of the three incest charges. It commenced when your victim was seven years of age. It involved a gross breach of trust, as was readily conceded by your counsel, and a level of compulsion in the physical acts that were committed against your daughter.
78 Your counsel conceded that this was a very serious example of the crime of incest. I have looked at the Sentencing Advisory Council snapshot no. 99 of 2010, dealing with the crime of incest. I have looked at the various recent cases, both overviews and case summaries, collected on the Judicial College of Victoria site, as well as those referred to in a table attached to the Court of Appeal decision, the DPP v CPD [2009] 22 VR 533.
79 That authority also provides some guidance on the way in which representative counts can be approached, of which I will have more to say shortly.
80 Further, I have looked at a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, which has at least some parallels. That is the case of R v DP [2011] VSCA 1. A decision from earlier this year.
81 Each of the offences, the subject of this indictment, are sexual offences for the purposes of the serious offender provisions within Part 2A of the Sentencing Act 1991. It follows that by Charge 3 on this indictment you will stand to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender. For each later charge, that is Charges 3 to 9, so much is conceded by your counsel.
82
Pursuant to s.6D of that Act, from Charge 3 onwards, on the indictment,
I must regard the protection of the community from you, as the principle purpose for which a sentence is to be imposed.
83 I have available to me the power to impose a disproportionate sentence in that regard. However, Mr Lynch, who acted on behalf of the Director, did not suggest that that course would be appropriate, and made clear that I ought not impose disproportionate terms. I now make equally clear that I will not impose any disproportionate sentences or act in any way pursuant to the provisions of s.6D(b).
84 Further, the presumption of concurrency is swept aside for any person sentenced as a serious offender, as you will be by Charge 3 on the indictment. See s.6E and s.16(1)(A)(c)
85 I must impose a just and adequate punishment. I must seek to deter you from offending. I must also though deter or dissuade others in the community from this abhorrent conduct. That is a significant purpose of sentencing in a case such as this. This court, in a case such as this, is obliged to send the strongest and clearest message to the community, that this sort of conduct will be met with stern punishment.
86 By the sentences imposed, I must manifest the court's strong denunciation of your disgraceful conduct.
87
In this case, the prosecution placed before me a McNeil Brown range of sentences, with a head sentence said to be falling in the range of ten to
12 years, and non parole period falling in the range of eight to ten years citing in support of those ranges, the serious nature of your offending, given the age of your victim, the protracted period of criminality and the representative basis of some of the counts. Your own counsel did not seek to address me in relation to those ranges provided.
88 In this case there are three counts of incest laid on a representative basis. There is also one indecent act laid on a representative basis, Charge 7. The balance of the charges are laid as individual events.
89 I take into account the way in which the court is to have regard to the representative nature of an offence, as spelt out by the Court of Appeal in the DPP v SBL [1998] VSCA 144.
90 It enables me to see the offence in its full circumstantial context, and it precludes it being said that the offending was, in any way, isolated.
91 You are not, by a loading of the sentence to be punished for the representative offences, but the sentence for the representative offence may reflect the fact that the offence occurred in a wider context.
92 I am also entitled to have regard to the representative nature of the conduct in making an assessment as to your prospects of rehabilitation and the weight to be given to specific deterrence. The representative character of these charges makes it appropriate to impose a higher sentence than what otherwise have been the case in relation to an isolated count. See DPP v EB [2008] VSCA 127, as discussed in R v DP [2011] VSCA 1, also DPP v CPD [2009] 22 VR 533.
93 I have, of course, considered the gravity of each of the charges of incest, as compared to each other. Each of these acts involved a total corruption by you of your relationship with your step-daughter. They each involve penetration, be it by way of your tongue to her vagina, your penis to her mouth or your penis to her vagina.
94 She was seven years of age for the commencement of the oral charges, embraced by Charges 1 and 2, and nine years of age at the time of the full penile/vaginal penetration.
95 The seriousness of all of this conduct is surely self-evident. That is not to downplay the seriousness of the indecent act conduct, be it by way of ejaculation into the towel, onto the pubic bone or abdomen of the complainant or as constituted by the provision of and showing of pornography to a person of those tender years.
96 As the materials make clear to me, you have totally abdicated your responsibilities as a step-father. Instead, you have embarked upon a process of corrupting all that could be corrupted in that relationship, by your various serious criminal activity committed, and committed for your own sexual gratification.
97 You had a recognition at the time of the wrongfulness of your activity, as spelt out in the report of Mr Ball. In the circumstances I conclude that you are a moderate to high risk of re-offence in accordance with that psychological assessment.
98 Given the nature of your offending and your continuing lack of insight, I am not able to be positive as to your prospects of rehabilitation. I find them to be well below average, at best. Would you stand up please, Mr Forsberg.
Sentence
99 On Charge 1, a representative charge of incest, founded on the introduction of your tongue into the vagina of Izabelle Blom, you are convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
100 On Charge 2, a representative charge of incest, founded on the introduction of your penis into the mouth of Izabelle Blom, you are convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
101
On Charge 3, you stand to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender.
On Charge 3, incest involving introduction of your penis into the vagina of Izabelle Blom, again laid on a representative basis, I convict and sentence you to six years imprisonment.
102 That sentence is the base sentence in these proceedings.
103 On Charge 4, indecent act, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
104 Likewise, on Charges 5, 6, 8 and 9, on each of those individual charges you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, on each.
105 On Charge 7, the representative count of indecent act relating to the showing of pornography, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
106 As I have indicated from Charge 3 on this indictment, you stand to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender, and I do so sentence you. I must regard the protection of the community as the principle purpose of sentencing. I have not, however, as I have made clear, acted pursuant to s.6D(b).
107 I regard myself as bound in the circumstances to pass only proportionate sentences, which is what I have endeavoured to do.
108 I must also obviously have regard to the principles of totality. Under the regime for serious offenders, unless otherwise directed, the various sentences passed upon you from Charge 3 onwards would be served cumulatively upon the other sentences. See s.6E.
109 This would lead to a staggering head sentence. Staggering, in terms of its dimensions.
110 Accordingly, I do otherwise direct, and I do so by pronouncing the following limited cumulations, which will recognise the differing acts and episodes, whilst also playing due regard to the principles of totality. Quite aside from the provisions attached to the serious offender provisions, there would have been a need to cumulate, as between a number of these counts to reflect the true criminality involved in your offending, the differing acts and the differing timeframes.
111 I recognise that there is a close temporal relationship between most of the indecent act charges and the penetration charges, embraced by the representative counts.
112 I must have regard to this principle of totality, and I must moderate, to an extent, the level of cumulation between the counts.
113 I have then considered the overall term imposed following that process, to satisfy myself that the outcome is both just and appropriate to your criminality, and not crushing in all of the circumstances.
114 I make then the following orders for cumulation. I direct that two years of the sentence imposed on each of Charges 1 and 2, be served cumulatively upon the base sentence and upon each other.
115 I direct that one month of each of the sentences imposed in relation to Charges 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, be served cumulatively upon the sentences imposed in relation to Charges 1, 2, 3 and upon each other.
116
This makes a total effective sentence of ten and a half years imprisonment.
I direct that you will not be eligible for release on parole for the period of eight years. Have a seat for a moment, Mr Forsberg.
117 Mr Lynch, I make the s.18 period 178 days. 156 up to the last
118 MR LYNCH: Yes. That is correct, Your Honour.
119 HIS HONOUR: Yes. Just remain seated Mr Forsberg. You have spent the period of 178 days in custody, by way of pre-sentence detention. I order that pursuant to s.18(1) of the Sentencing Act, that this period be reckoned as already served in relation to the sentence, and entered in the records of the court.
120 A forensic procedure has already been carried out upon you, and you have been found guilty of the offence in respect of which the procedure was carried out.
121 The prosecution has now applied, pursuant to the provisions of s.464ZFB(1) of the Crimes Act for a retention order in relation to that sample, and any related material or information.
122 That application is consented to by you. I am satisfied that in all of the circumstances, the making of the order is justified for the following reasons: Namely, the seriousness of the offending, that the order was consented to, and that I find the order to be in the public interest.
123 There is also the matter of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. Each count of incest is a Class 1 offence. All the other offences on this indictment are Class 2 offences, under that Act of Parliament.
124 It follows that you have been sentence for registrable offences. Pursuant to s.34 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, you must comply and continue to comply with your reporting obligations imposed under that Act for the remainder of your life.
125 I will shortly have handed to you a document that explains the terms of that Act, and the conditions which will apply to you, including the reporting of your personal details to the Chief Commissioner of Police upon your release from custody, and thereafter, as I say, for the balance of your life.
126 You will see also that this Act imposes various other prohibitions upon you in the future, one of which is a prohibition upon your gaining any employment in any child related activity, which is widely defined under that Act.
127 To do so would constitute itself a serious criminal offence. You should make yourself familiar with the terms imposed by the Sex Offender Registration Act.
128 I will ask you shortly to sign an acknowledgement of the document that comes to you to explain this material.
129 The prosecution have applied for a disposal order in relation to various items listed in a schedule attached to a draft order. I have signed that order. Again, you have consented to the making of that order.
130 You have been sentenced for relevant offences, as a serious sexual offender, and pursuant to s.6F of the Sentencing Act, I direct that your status as a serious sexual offender be entered in the records of this court.
131 Finally, I hope I have made clear that you have received a significant benefit by virtue of your plea. Had you been found guilty following a contested trial, before a jury, I would have imposed a term of 13 and a half years imprisonment. I would have fixed a non parole period of 11 and a half years imprisonment.
132 I direct that this statement be noted in the records of the court, pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act.
133 Gentlemen, are each of you confident that you understand, firstly, the individual terms that I have pronounced? Secondly, the orders for cumulation, the intended effect and the non parole period?
134 MR LYNCH: Yes, Your Honour.
135 MR COOTE: Yes, Your Honour.
136 HIS HONOUR: All right. Are there any other matters that I have overlooked, Mr Lynch, at all, or not?
137 MR LYNCH: No, Your Honour. No, Your Honour.
138
HIS HONOUR: All right. We will just have that document printed out.
Mr Coote, I will have handed down to you the acknowledgement that I have referred to in terms of the Sex Offender Registration Regulations. It is simply an indication of the service of this form.
139 That will need to be signed by your client on the last page. You will see it is a lengthy document. It is not necessary prior to signing for him to have read the entirety of the document. He will get a copy of it. It is simply an acknowledgement of the receipt of that.
140 MR COOTE: Then that will go with his personal - - -
141 HIS HONOUR: Then it will go with him, but as I say he will need to, in due course, be very much au fait with his obligations under that Act. So I wonder if you would be good enough to go down to the dock and obtain the acknowledgement of that, by way of signature from your client please?
142 MR COOTE: Your Honour, I am just clarifying if Mr Forsberg heard it was - - -
143 HIS HONOUR: Yes.
144 MR COOTE: There was some issues there with the acoustics - - -
145 HIS HONOUR: It is a pretty uncomfortable setting up there.
146 MR COOTE: A masterpiece of design.
147 HIS HONOUR: It is. Anyway, you understand, and the effect ultimately is a term of imprisonment with various cumulation orders of ten and a half years, with a non parole period of eight years.
148 MR COOTE: Eight years less - - -
149 HIS HONOUR: Less, of course, the time that he has served.
150 MR COOTE: Yes. I can say he understands that.
151 HIS HONOUR: Yes. Thanks for that. All right. I think that completes the matter. I have now signed that document. It will be signed by my associate, as well, and a copy will be provided. Remove Mr Forsberg please.
- - -
0
3
0