R v Linacre
[2014] VSC 615
•10 December 2014
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2013 0219
| The Queen | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| Philip Linacre | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Warren CJ |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 March 2014 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 10 December 2014 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Linacre |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VSC 615 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Multiple counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception – Multiple counts of having a deficiency in a trust account – Continuing criminal enterprise counts – Lawyer misappropriated over $12 million of clients’ money – Plea of guilty – Remorse – Loss of career – Importance of general deterrence, just punishment, denunciation and rehabilitation – Total effective sentence 12 years’ imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr R Elston QC | The Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr I Hill QC with Ms O Trumble | Tony Hargreaves & Partners Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Philip Linacre, you have pleaded guilty to 21 counts of dishonesty and five counts of having a deficiency in a trust account.
You are now 62 years’ of age. You have practised as a solicitor, now referred to as a lawyer, since 1977. In that position you became a trusted legal advisor to a number of clients. While acting in that position of trust you perpetrated a series of serious offences and deceived numerous clients to hand over in excess of $12 million. You have acted in a way that offends the standards that the community, and this Court, expects from legal practitioners.
Background
You were born in Melbourne on 20 May 1952. Your father served in World War II as a member of the RAAF. He also operated a successful plastics company while your mother stayed at home to look after you and your brother. You had a privileged upbringing attending Melbourne Grammar School through both primary and secondary school. As a child you suffered severe asthma and were unable to participate in a number of school activities, including sport. You failed year 12 on your first attempt. However, you persisted and repeated year 12 gaining your Higher Secondary Certificate.
You did not achieve sufficient results in year 12 to enter law school, although you were able to gain entry into the Articled Clerks’ course at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. You were admitted to practice on March 1977. Your counsel informed the Court that from that time you practised mostly on your own, without a mentor. In your early career you entered into a number of partnerships which were not successful. From 1 January 1981 until 20 July 2012 you were in possession of a practising certificate that entitled you to receive trust funds in your capacity as a lawyer.
From October 1998 until you handed in your practising certificate to the Legal Services Board in July 2012 you were the principal of your own firm, its last incarnation being Linacre Lawyers. From that position, beginning in May 2000 you engaged in serious criminal misconduct.
Turning to your family life. You have been in two main relationships. In 1980 you married Annette. That marriage produced three sons, two of whom survive following the death of your son around five years ago. You separated from your wife in 1994 and in 2000 you met your partner Julie with whom you have had a de facto relationship since. That relationship ended after you disclosed your criminal conduct to your partner.
Circumstances of the offending
During your time practising as a lawyer you operated what you described as a ‘legitimate mortgage book’. At some time in 2000 you were suffering from significant financial pressure and decided to deceive a client into providing you with moneys on the pretext that you were offering the funds as a loan to a third party, secured by a first mortgage on a property. You informed your client that he would receive a significant return on his investment, somewhere between 12 and 24 per cent. You then produced a false epitome of mortgage to ensure he was satisfied that the investment was secured. Over the following 12 years you continued this conduct on a significant scale, repeatedly deceiving clients to believe they were lending money secured against mortgages.
The scheme you deployed is commonly described as a ‘Ponzi scheme’. You induced your clients to provide you with funds in order for you to pay out the interest accrued from other clients’ investments. You appeared to operate three bank accounts. One was held with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia under the name ‘Secured Attorney’, and another was in the name of ‘Linacre Lawyers’. Your third account was actually not your account as such, it was an account controlled by the barrister’s clerk, Mr Peter Lennon. That account was named ‘Techtics Pty Ltd’ and with Mr Lennon’s permission you used this account as your trust account. This of itself was an extraordinary state of affairs.
The funds that were given to you were placed into the ‘Secured Attorney’ account. According to the information you provided to the Legal Services Board and the Victoria Police most of these funds stayed in that account, with some funds moved to the ‘Linacre Lawyers’ account where it was used either to run your practice or for your own personal benefit. You paid your clients their interest from the fictional loans from your ‘Secured Attorney’ account, though towards the end of the scheme you moved funds from the ‘Techtics Pty Ltd’ account into the ‘Secured Attorney’ account to keep up the interest payments. Towards the end of this criminal endeavour you were paying out somewhere in the vicinity of $140,000 in interest.
The charges
I now turn to the charges. Charges 1 and 4 relate to transactions with Mr Brian Linacre, your uncle. Between 4 May 2000 and 11 March 2004, Mr B Linacre made investments with you totalling $300,000. He made further investments between 2003 and 2011 totalling $20,000. You provided him with a false epitome of mortgage and paid him $52,300 in interest, however $150,000 of the original investment remains unpaid.
Charges 2 and 5 involve two victims, Mr Ian Kleeman and Ms Mary Lee Doerner, a married couple who had been your clients since 2001. Between 7 March 2002 and 31 May 2006, the time of Mr Kleeman’s death, they invested $2,225,000 allegedly secured against a number of properties on the basis of bogus epitomes of mortgage. Ms Doerner continued to invest moneys with you after her husband’s death. While you paid them some interest, the principal sum of $3,092,573.36 is still outstanding.
Charge 3 concerns Ms Mary McCormack. On 17 June 2002 she invested $50,000 with you believing it to be secured by a first mortgage. She has received some interest payments but none of her original investment.
The sixth charge relates to Ms Michelle Camilleri who had known you since the early 1980s. Between 20 July 2006 and 19 May 2008 she invested $500,000 with you on the basis of two fake epitomes of mortgage. She is one of the victims who received some of her money back, however she is still owed over $350,000 of her original investment.
Charges 7 and 10 concern your close friend, Mr James Conquest. Mr Conquest practises as a barrister and provided you with a power of attorney over his affairs for a period of time while he was overseas. On 1 May 2007 you withdrew $70,000 from Mr Conquest’s cash account and placed it in your ‘Secured Attorney’ account. You informed Mr Conquest that you were using the funds for a short-term investment. You also received an additional $19,580.11 in May 2008 on the basis that these funds would be secured by way of first mortgage. While some interest has been paid, the original investment has not been repaid.
Charges 8 and 19 concern your friend Mr Peter Lennon, a barrister’s clerk. Between 5 February 2008 and 6 October 2011 Mr Lennon advanced $3,903,125 to you on the basis that the funds were secured by way of first mortgages based on a number of forged epitomes of mortgage. Charge 19 is a rolled up charge and covers two separate payments totalling $59,049.90, which was invested between October 2011 and June 2012.
Charge 9 concerns Ms Hilary Cook who was your client since 1991. On the advice of her late husband she provided you with $620,000 over five years on the belief that it was secured. Indeed you showed her a number of false epitomes of mortgage to induce that belief. The principal remains outstanding.
Charges 11 and 12 relate to identical conduct against two of your victims, Ms Caroline Russell and Mr and Mrs Roberts. Ms Russell provided you with $50,000 (Charge 11) and Mr and Mrs Roberts gave you $100,000 (Charge 12) all on the basis that their loans were secured. Neither of the victims has been repaid the original investment.
Charge 13 involved DLF Jeans Pty Ltd. Over a period of around three years the company provided you with moneys totalling $2,080,000 on the basis that the loans were secured. You provided the business with eleven separate bogus epitomes of mortgage. While you made interest payments totalling $1,150,727.90, the principal amount has not been repaid.
Charges 14 and 15 involve similar conduct and loan amounts. The victims were Ms Helen Gregson and Ms Kerrie Ingelton. Both women gave you $50,000 each on the basis that the loans were secured. They both received some interest payments but they have not been repaid their original investment.
Charges 16 and 20 relate to loans of $200,000 made by Mr Joseph Camilleri between 4 October 2010 and 27 September 2011 and Ms Heather Lawford in December 2011. Like many of the other victims they trusted you when you informed them the mortgages would be secured by a first mortgage over property. While both victims were paid interest, you have not repaid their principal investment.
Charge 17 concerns Mr and Mrs Barr, clients of yours for many years. They provided you with $500,000 on the basis of a false epitome of mortgage. You paid them interest between February 2011 and May 2012 though their $500,000 original investment remains outstanding.
Charge 18 relates to Mr Matt Andrew who used $100,000 of an inheritance to invest in what he thought was a secured investment. Indeed, you provided him with a false epitome of mortgage. He has received no interest payments and none of his original investment has been repaid.
Charge 21 is the last of the dishonesty offences and concerns Ms Janice Johnston who gave you $150,000 between December 2011 and February 2012 on the basis her investment was secured. Ms Johnston has not received any interest nor had her principal investment repaid.
Turning to the trust deficiency offences. Charges 22 to 26 relate to a number of funds inappropriately disbursed out of Mr Lennon’s account of ‘Techtics Pty Ltd’ to the ‘Linacre Lawyers’ account. These funds were funds that belonged to your clients and they were used, according to you, to pay out more funds in your ‘Ponzi scheme’. Each victim and the amount were:
·Charge 22 – Mr Joseph Kurukulasuriya ($1,650);
·Charge 23 Mr Peter Bhogal ($14,000);
·Charge 24 – Mr Vincent Oliva ($12,800);
·Charge 25 – Ms Beatrice May ($102,563.38); and
·Charge 26 – Mr Robert Langford ($68,955.92).
Coming forward
On 19 July 2012 you attended the offices of the Legal Services Board and voluntarily disclosed your dishonest conduct. At that time you handed in your lawyer’s practising certificate and asked for it to be cancelled. Furthermore, you requested that the Board arrange to take over your practice. You were briefly interviewed at that time and provided full and frank admissions. A few months later on 6 August 2012 you filed a petition for bankruptcy.
After you handed in your practising certificate and made admissions some time elapsed before you were interviewed by Victoria Police. During that time your lawyer, Mr Hargreaves, wrote a number of letters to the Legal Services Board and police indicating that you would make full admissions and plead guilty. Those letters further set out that you wished to be charged as soon as possible so you could start serving a period of imprisonment. I note, this was commendable action for someone in your position.
After a period of ten months on 10 September 2013, you were interviewed by the Fraud Squad of the Victoria Police. During that interview you made a number of admissions. When you were asked for an explanation for your conduct, you struggled to provide one.
On the same day as your interview, you were charged and since that time you have been in custody and have not applied for bail. Your counsel informed me that this is because you sought to start your sentence as soon as possible.
I now turn to the factors to be taken into account in sentencing you.
There are a number of aggravating factors that must be taken into account.
Nature and gravity of the offence
The nature of these offences is particularly serious. All of the charges carry significant maximum penalties. Charges 1-21 all deal with deceptive conduct where, on multiple occasions you falsified epitomes of mortgages to deceive your clients into believing that the loan was secured. You engaged in a premeditated series of transactions and used your legal expertise to forge important property documents. Charges 22-26 are equally serious and relate to the special procedure lawyers must adhere to when using their clients’ money. Your breaches of these special procedures was egregious.
Breach of trust
Your deception is magnified by your position as a lawyer and trusted adviser to many of your clients. Having read the victim impact statements tendered to the Court, there was a common concern; these people trusted you and you deceived them.
Many of your clients sought your assistance in difficult times. Ms Doerner (charges 2 and 5), for instance, looked to you after the death of her husband to assist her in the investment she and her husband had made. You continued to deceive an elderly woman in order to maintain this despicable charade. Many of your victims trusted you because you were a family member or a friend. You exploited their trust for your own personal gain.
The rule of law is under-pinned by the role of the lawyer who plays a key role in the administration of justice. A lawyer is subject to special obligations which distinguish the lawyer from other professions. It is why lawyers are held in the position of trust by their clients. You betrayed that trust and disgraced the legal profession and yourself. You have brought the whole profession into disrepute.[1] Lawyers are in fact officers of the Supreme Court by virtue of their special role requiring good character, honesty and adherence to the law. In practice you have failed in all respects.
[1]See R v Coukoulis [2003] VSCA 22 [41].
Quantum and period of offending
A major aggravating factor is the significant amounts of money you stole or illegally disbursed out of your trust fund. According to the Crown you misappropriated $12,164,328.37, you repaid approximately $1.8 million of interest and you have not paid any restitution to your victims. I was informed that this is, by a significant margin, the largest amount ever misappropriated by a lawyer in this State.
Furthermore, your conduct went on for a significant period of time. You first stole funds from your uncle Mr Brian Linacre in May 2000, the last charged offence is dated 6 February 2012. This was not a momentary lapse of judgment. It was prolonged and calculated to extract significant amounts of money from your victims. Over this lengthy period you had ample opportunity to reflect and think about what you had done and were doing. However, you kept going, deceiving more and more clients.
Impact on the victims
The Crown tendered a bundle of nine victim impact statements. I have read them all carefully and they make for alarming reading. Regardless of the sheer amount of money you stole, the impact on the victims has been debilitating. From many of your victims you took their life savings, superannuation or inheritance. Some of your victims spoke about their inability to trust people anymore, or how they can no longer retire when they wished. Some felt you preyed upon their vulnerability due to age, ill health or personal loss.
Importantly, these victims came to you in their time of need. Many sought information about investing their life savings, superannuation or inheritance. They placed complete trust in you. You did not only steal money from your victims, you robbed them of their future.
One of your victims said the following:
The breach of trust… has left me emotionally and financially devastated. It has cost me my security, my future, my happiness and my home.[2]
[2]Statement of Ms Doerner of 30 January 2014.
Another said:
He [meaning you] stated to trust him and he would take care of my money. I thought he was helping me
…
I feel totally betrayed… and I’ve been left financially ruined as a result of this theft.[3]
[3]Statement of Ms McCormack of 30 January 2014.
Many of your victims have suffered and continue to suffer ill-health because of your criminality.
Factors in mitigation
Your counsel submitted eight factors that should be taken into account in mitigation of your sentence.
Plea of guilty
You entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, indeed you indicated your guilt long before you were charged, both verbally to the Legal Services Board and the police as well as through your own lawyer. Such a plea has a number of effects. First, it indicates remorse. In addition to the plea your counsel tendered a report of Mr Patrick Newton, your treating psychologist, who outlined his assessment of the level of your remorse. He wrote:
As a former solicitor, he has been under no illusions about the gravity of his situation and the likely outcome of his case. While he is naturally concerned about some aspects of imprisonment, he has welcomed the prospect of being sentenced as an opportunity to demonstrate in a tangible fashion the rejection which he now has toward his former conduct ... He noted the magnitude of the amount involved in the Ponzi scheme he operated made it impossible for him to make restitution, but he hoped that his incarceration might in some way expiate the guilt he feels.
I accept your counsel’s submission that you are generally remorseful for your conduct and have taken full responsibility.
Secondly, the plea of guilty has saved the victims the trauma of a long trial. This was a complex crime and would have taken a significant period to work its way through to a conclusion. You have also saved the State the cost of running a potentially costly trial. Thus the plea has a utilitarian value.
Cooperation
From the moment you walked into the Legal Services Board on 19 July 2012 you have fully cooperated with authorities. Your interviews with the Legal Services Board and Victoria Police indicate your willingness to assist authorities and a forthright attitude that has assisted these charges being laid. As I have already noted, this was a very complex crime and it would have taken the authorities some time to piece together all the separate pieces of information.
Having said this, your cooperation came at a point where you felt you could no longer continue your criminal enterprise. In fact when the pressure became too much you first looked to the money of others in your trust account to cover your tracks before approaching the authorities. Thus while your co-operation is a mitigating factor, it is tempered by your conduct towards the end of your offending when you faced the inevitability of being discovered.
Age
You are now 62 years’ old and you are facing a significant term of imprisonment. The daily rigours of jail will be a substantial change for you when compared with your previous life. I accept that life in prison will be more difficult for you than someone who is younger.
Chance of re-offending
Your counsel contended that there is little likelihood that you will re-offend. I accept that you will have limited opportunity to engage in similar conduct as you will likely never practise as a lawyer again. Furthermore, your age, show of remorse and cooperation with authorities all indicate that you are at low risk of re-offending. I also observe that you have no prior convictions.
Loss of career
You have been struck off the roll of lawyers and will likely never practise again. Your counsel submitted that this was a loss that you would keenly feel. He noted that you were someone who relished being a lawyer, someone who enjoyed reading cases and talking about the law with friends and colleagues. I recognise that the loss of your ability to practise has had a deleterious effect on you.
Shame and disgrace
It was submitted by your counsel that your conduct and subsequent court hearing has brought you great shame and embarrassment. In the report of Mr Newton he noted that you had acknowledged that your actions had brought the profession into disrepute and that you ‘deserved nothing beyond opprobrium and ostracism’.
Difficulty in custody
I accept, as your counsel submitted, that prison will be particularly difficult for you. This is for two reasons. First, as Mr Newton notes, you are in ‘a state of acute personal crisis’ and you are currently experiencing residual depressive symptoms, in particular Adjustment Mood Disorder with Depressive Mood. Though, I note that your psychologist attributes some of these issues to your anxiety regarding being sentenced and your transition to prison life. However, he further observed that your ‘longstanding history of depression’ means that you would be expected to ‘continue to experience more severe symptoms than is typical of first-time prisoners.’
Secondly, your counsel contended that as you were in protective custody, your time in prison will be even more burdensome. As the Court of Appeal[4] has noted:
In Victoria a prisoner in protective custody does not serve his term in solitary confinement. The prisoner will first be placed in a protection unit and then transferred to a protection prison… His movement through the prison system will be different from that of ordinary prisoners. It will be harder for him to move to prison farms or unwalled prison environment; he will have less access to education courses; certain classes of work will not be available to him. He will be kept physically either at Ararat or Beechworth Prison for the entirety of his sentence, in a special category, restricting him in a variety of ways.[5]
[4]R v Roston (1996) 2 VR 97
[5]Ibid 102.
While I acknowledge that you are currently in protective custody, I also accept the Crown’s submission that it is unclear how long you will remain there. I am not privy to the reasons why the authorities have decided to place you in protective custody. It is a relevant consideration, but in my view not a matter of disproportionate weight.
Delay
Finally, counsel noted the substantial delay between you coming forward and being charged by police. You informed the Legal Services Board on 19 July 2012, but you were not interviewed by police until 10 September 2013. That delay was considerable and I accept that life has been quite difficult with this issue hanging over your head. The delay is made worse by the fact that you were keen to assist the authorities with the investigation and welcomed the charges being laid so you could begin your sentence.
Having said this, you perpetrated this criminal conduct over a very long period of time. It was both calculated and complex. In all probability the nature of your crime may somewhat explain the delay you have experienced.
Sentencing purposes
The Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘Sentencing Act’) requires me to take into account a number of sentencing purposes in coming to a decision about your ultimate sentence.
General deterrence, denunciation and community protection
In my view, a key consideration in arriving at an appropriate sentence is the matter of general deterrence with denunciation and community protection. Lawyers hold a position of trust. They are officers of this Court and have a paramount duty to it. Lawyers are entrusted by the community to act with integrity. They are often relied on in times of crisis and tragedy. The community must have faith in the legal profession in order for the legal system to operate effectively.
Moreover, other lawyers and the community must be aware that this type of gross misconduct will result in very serious punishment. Lawyers must comprehend that the courts uphold the highest standards for lawyers in this State. Lawyers are not above the law.
Rehabilitation
In my view, you have strong prospects of rehabilitation. You have taken ownership of your situation, made full admissions and appear to be genuinely remorseful. Further, Mr Newton noted in his assessment that he is confident that with continued treatment you would be likely to re-engage proactively with mainstream society.
Specific deterrence and punishment
Given your early plea, lack of previous criminal convictions and your high prospects of rehabilitation, specific deterrence is not a significant sentencing factor. However, the need for a just and appropriate punishment is a central consideration. You have acted in a despicable way, preyed on those who trusted you and undermined the faith of the community in lawyers. While the scheme may not have made you a rich man, you clearly profited from your criminal actions. However, I accept that the loss of your career and the inability to practise again is a punishment that is already keenly felt by you.
Maximum penalties
According to s 81(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), the maximum penalty for obtaining property by deception is 10 years’ imprisonment. That sentence is only applicable to charges 4, 5, 10 and 19.
By virtue of Part 2B of the Sentencing Act, charges 1-3, 6-9, 11-18 and 20-21 (inclusive) are considered continuing criminal enterprises and the maximum penalty is therefore 20 years’ imprisonment on each of those charges.
Pursuant to s 3.3.21 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic) the maximum penalty for charges 22-26 (inclusive) is 15 years’ imprisonment.
In determining the appropriate sentence, the amounts of money defrauded are relevant but not the only factor. As I observed already, your offending was one of the worst of its type in this State in terms of the total amount defrauded. However, your criminal behaviour was strikingly similar, if not identical, on each charge. Furthermore, the breach of trust and level of distress and inconvenience for each victim will vary between individuals depending on their own circumstances. Thus, while there will be some disparity between the sentence on each count, my intention is that the sentences be proportional to the gravity of the offences. There is no doubt in my mind that a high order of gravity pervades your offending.
Similar cases
Your counsel, along with the Crown, provided a number of cases involving fraudulent conduct by lawyers. I have read and considered all these cases.
No two cases are the same. In this case, the circumstances are exceptional in the magnitude of the conduct. I have found the cases to be instructive in assessing the appropriate sentence imposed for crimes of a similar nature and the role of the sentencing factors in cases of lawyers misappropriating funds from their clients.
In the end, however, I have been guided principally by the particular circumstances of this case and the specific sentencing factors.
Sentence
I now turn to your sentence. You have committed a number of serious offences in the trusted position of a lawyer. That prima facie justifies a sentence of imprisonment.[6]
[6]See Director of Public Prosecutions v Serong [2001] VSC 213 [12].
On the non-continuing criminal enterprise offences, I sentence you as follows:
·Charge 4 – 15 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 5 – 18 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 10 – 12 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 19 – 12 months’ imprisonment
On the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) offences, I sentence you as follows:
·Charge 1 – 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 2 – 7 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 3 – 2 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 6 – 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 7 – 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 8 – 8 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 9 – 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 11 – 2 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 12 – 3 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 13 – 7 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 14 – 3 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 15 – 2 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 16 – 4 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 17 – 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 18 - 3 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 20 - 3 years’ imprisonment
·Charge 21 – 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment
In relation to the charges for having a deficiency in a trust account, I sentence you as follows:
·Charge 22 – 12 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 23 – 12 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 24 – 12 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 25 – 18 months’ imprisonment
·Charge 26 – 18 months’ imprisonment
I order that the base sentence is 8 years’ imprisonment on Charge 8. All other sentences are to be served concurrently, save where I specifically direct cumulation.
I make the following orders for cumulation:
·Charges 4 and 5 – 1 month on each charge cumulative on Charge 8.
·Charges 1,3,6,7,9,11,12,14,15,16,17,18, 20 and 21 – 2 months on each charge cumulative on Charge 8.
·Charges 2 and 13 – 9 months on each charge cumulative on Charge 8.
That makes a total effective sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.
Taking into account your age, and other factors such as your location in protective custody together with your early plea and cooperation with the authorities I have decided to set a lower non-parole period than I would normally do. I therefore fix a non-parole period of 8 years.
Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that [456] days of pre-sentence detention (not including today) are to be reckoned as already served under the sentence.
Pursuant to s 6J of the Sentencing Act, I record that you have been sentenced as a CCE offender in respect of the CCE offences charges in counts 1-3, 6-9, 11-18 and 20-21 (inclusive).
I declare, pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act that if it were not for your plea of guilty I would have fixed a total effective sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years.
4