R v LW
[2021] VSC 278
•9 March 2021
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2020 0254
S ECR 2020 0255
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| LW and DANIEL McCONNELL |
---
JUDGE: | COGHLAN JA |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 2 March 2021 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 9 March 2021 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v LW & Anor |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VSC 278 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Reckless conduct endangering life – Attempting to pervert the course of justice – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Co-accused – Inappropriate use of firearms – Youthful offender – Sentenced to adjourned undertaking – Sentenced to Community Corrections Order.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr J. Lewis | Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused LW | Mr D. Hallowes SC with Mr S. Norton | Stary Norton Halphen |
| For the Accused McConnell | Mr J. Anderson | Sullivan Braham Barristers & Solicitors |
HIS HONOUR:
You, Daniel McConnell, pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice before Judicial Registrar Freeman on 11 February 2021.
LW, following a sentence indication hearing, you pleaded guilty to one charge of reckless conduct endangering life, and one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice before me on 23 February 2021.
The facts may be stated relatively briefly. In this analysis I have called heavily upon the Summary of Prosecution Opening, which was Exhibit 1 on the plea and read to the Court by Mr Justin Lewis, Crown Prosecutor who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The critical events occurred on Sunday 27 August 2017. You, LW, knew Daniel McConnell and Dustin Buckley had spent the afternoon and night of 26 August 2017 together. The following day at about 12.30pm after doing some work on McConnell’s vehicle, the three of you travelled to a place known as Cat Track in Neerim East. You used McConnell’s vehicle. You had three firearms with you; a Sturm Ruger .243 calibre rifle and a Savage .22 calibre rifle, which were registered in the name of LW’s mother, and a Browning .22 calibre rifle which was registered in McConnell’s name. You, LW, had loaded a discarded television into the vehicle.
When your group arrived at Cat Track, the television was placed in the middle of the track, and from about 50 metres away the three of you started shooting at the television. Dustin Buckley went to inspect the television. When he was standing a couple of metres to the right of it, you, LW, fired about 10 shots at the left hand side of the television. Dustin Buckley also fired at some puddles to splash you, LW. The three of you went back to the vehicle. You, LW, loaded four rounds into the Savage rifle. You fired the gun several times. Because of the sound you heard when you last cycled the action of the weapon, you assumed you had fired all of the rounds you had loaded into the rifle. You carried out no other check. You placed the weapon on the bonnet of the vehicle.
What is said to have happened next is set out in the prosecution’s opening as follows, and I quote:
At this point, Buckley grabbed the savage rifle. [LW] says that Buckley pointed it at his own head. [LW] said “don’t” and grabbed it back. Buckley grabbed the weapon again so that both of them had hold of it. The two of them were laughing and joking around. Buckley’s hands were not near the trigger - they could not have reached in the position he was in. [LW] had hold of the stock end of the weapon near the magazine. The two were pulling the gun in opposite directions. Although they were each pulling on the gun, [LW] was unaware that the weapon was loaded and, as a result, was not seriously trying to force it from Buckley. The dispute over the gun was light-hearted in nature.
It was then that the gun discharged, most probably as a result of [LW] inadvertently contacting the trigger. The projectile struck Buckley in the head. This event was not witnessed by McConnell, whose attention was focused elsewhere at the time.
Dustin Buckley collapsed on the ground unconscious. [LW] exclaimed, “I’ve shot him” and “I fucked up”.
Dustin Buckley woke up, and you, LW, tried to stop the bleeding. You, LW, and you, McConnell, then took Dustin Buckley to Neerim District Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital. Dustin Buckley was treated at the hospital and later transferred to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, where he died, on 29 August 2017. It was known at a relatively early stage that he would not recover from his injuries.
On the way to the hospital, you, LW, became concerned about the role you had played in the shooting, and decided to pass on an untrue version to explain the shooting. You, McConnell, agreed. On arrival at the hospital, you, LW, told the duty nurse that Dustin Buckley had been injured by a ricocheting bullet when you were out yabbying. You told the duty nurse that your group had no firearms with you. You repeated that story to others, including the police. Later in the afternoon, both of you took the police to what you said was the scene of the shooting. You took the police to Memory Lane in Neerim East. When there, both of you maintained your earlier story although you admitted to the possession of the .243 calibre rifle, but said it had never been out of the vehicle. The police who attended the scene were not convinced that it had been the location of the shooting.
You were both taken to the Warragul Police Station where you, LW, made a written statement. You gave a detailed description of hearing gunshots in the vicinity, you said that the three of you returned to the vehicle to get some yabby nets. You and McConnell were walking ahead of Dustin Buckley when there was another gunshot. You and McConnell turned and saw Dustin Buckley on his hands and knees, apparently having been shot. You told the police that the .243 calibre rifle and ammunition had been in the back of McConnell’s vehicle.
You, McConnell, at that time provided a signed statement which was similar in its detail to what LW had said. At some time between 8.50pm and 10.35pm you broke down and gave a truthful account. In the early hours of Monday 28 August 2020, you were further interviewed in the form of video tape witness interview, and told police what had happened. That version largely corresponded with the way the case is now put.
You, LW, were further interviewed on Monday 28 August 2018. In that interview you told the police that the three of you had been target shooting in an area known as Big Dam, off Memory Lane. The gist of the story became that Dustin Buckley had been injured as a result of a ricochet from him firing at a tree and hitting a nearby rock. You accepted that the earlier version was false. That is, at that time you were still persisting with a false version of events. That version is particularly mean.
You were interviewed again, the same day, and said the circumstances in which Dustin Buckley was shot were accidental. You then told the police what I have set out above. You said you had lied because you were scared. You later took part in a detailed video re-enactment. It has not been suggested to me that that re-enactment is not accurate.
The false version of events, the false re-enactment, and the false statements taken together amount to the attempt to pervert the course of justice. It is not unusual in these courts for those interviewed about offending to advance false versions of events. That conduct is usually absorbed in the matters relating to the more, or most, serious offence. However the view has been taken in this case that the elaborate conduct, including creating a new crime scene, was more extreme than usual, and warranted the additional charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, which subsumed a charge of perjury.
It should be noted that the false version of events accompanied by a relatively elaborate re-enactment, was only maintained in your case, McConnell, for less than 12 hours, and in your case, LW, for less than 24 hours. You, LW, were not obliged to keep speaking to police, and if you wanted you could have still advanced the version of events in which you avoided any responsibility for the discharge of the firearm. Of course that position was limited by virtue of the fact that you had said at the time you had shot Dustin Buckley and what had been told to the police by McConnell.
I accept that it is difficult for the victims to accept the version advanced by you, LW. The difficulty with cases such as this, however, is that if I were to reject the version given, that does not mean that I could substitute some other version. What was particularly hard for Dustin Buckley’s family, is that you, LW, personally told them the ricochet story. It does appear that when they saw the images of Dustin’s injuries, they knew that it was not a ricochet. The pathologist found stippling tattooing around Dustin Buckley’s head wound, which indicated to a ballistics expert that the shot had been fired from between 2cm and 5.5cm away from the head. It was because of that early false version that many of those who provided victim impact statements find it very difficult to accept your later version as truthful.
It should be noted, however, that in pleading guilty to reckless conduct endangering life, you, LW, do not plead to actually causing the death of Dustin Buckley. The conduct of leaving a loaded weapon on the bonnet of McConnell’s vehicle, when you had taken insufficient action to ensure that the belief that it was unloaded was correct, taken together with the struggle over a loaded firearm, is the conduct which constitutes reckless conduct endangering life.
I said in discussion that I regarded the Director’s decision to indicate that the matter could resolve with a plea to these charges was appropriate. I said that in part because I am not sure that manslaughter would or could have been made out, in particular whether it could have been proved that your negligence was of such a high degree as to amount to manslaughter. It seems to me that it is likely, because of the events, that Dustin Buckley also assumed that the weapon was not loaded. He does not, however, carry any blame.
What you, LW, did, was to place a loaded firearm on the bonnet of the car, believing it was not loaded. You then engaged in a struggle about the gun, which unfortunately led to Dustin Buckley’s death.
On the plea I receive the following 14 victim impact statements:
(a) Victim Impact Statement of Ruth Buckley;
(b) Victim Impact Statement of Nina Buckley;
(c) Victim Impact Statement of Naomi Buckley;
(d) Victim Impact Statement of Will Hardisty;
(e) Victim Impact Statement of Christine Hickson;
(f) Victim Impact Statement of Clint Hickson;
(g) Victim Impact Statement of Heather Hickson;
(h) Victim Impact Statement of Coby Buckley;
(i) Victim Impact Statement of Beth Maber;
(j) Victim Impact Statement of Dioni Hardisty;
(k) Victim Impact Statement of James Hardisty;
(l) Victim Impact Statement of Joshua Buchanan;
(m) Victim Impact Statement of Lynne Levey; and
(n) Victim Impact Statement of Laura Bradley.
Those statements were marked Exhibits 2A to N. The statements of James Hickson, Will Hardesty, Naomi Buckley, Christine Hickson, Lynne Levey, Nina Buckley and Dioni Hardisty were read to the Court, and I have read all the other statements.
I have read all the victim impact material carefully. The material is very moving. The loss of Dustin Buckley is profound. It is a case of the unnecessary death of a promising young man for no good reason. It is viewed by many as contrary to the natural order. Many see you, LW and McConnell, having survived and their loved one not, as something unfair. I have observed over a long period of time that this type of case is particularly hurtful for those left behind. A good deal of that is to do with the absence of any rational explanation. I have taken the victim impact material into account.
Plea on behalf of LW
A plea was advanced on your behalf, LW, by Mr David Hallows SC and Mr Sam Norton. They submitted a number of matters on the plea. On 19 February 2021, I heard an application for a sentence indication. I deferred that decision until I had a chance to consider the victim impact statements, which I did. On 23 February, I indicated that if you were to plead guilty to those charges, I would be unlikely to impose a sentence of imprisonment to be served immediately. That is framed in the language that is used in the statute. You then did plead guilty. I had received material, including an outline of submissions and response in support of that application. I indicated that I would reconsider that material on the plea, and I have done so.
On the plea I mark the outline and response as Exhibits 3A and 3B. I was provided with a number of references, which I marked as Exhibits 4A to J. There were ten references in all. They all speak well of you, and what you have achieved, and many of them set out the effect that these matters have had on you.
You are now 20 years and 9 months old. You were 17 years and 3 months old at the time of the events. You are in a relationship with GO, who is pregnant. Your baby is due in August. You have the support of your parents, and your brother and sister. You commenced a carpentry apprenticeship in 2017, which you should complete this year. You have only some of the school-based aspects of that apprenticeship to complete. You have no prior convictions, and as far as I am aware, nothing pending.
The matters put in mitigation were:
(a) Your youth. You were 17 years and 3 months old at the time of the offences. That is the single most important feature of this case.
(b) Delay. The offending occurred in August 2017, three and a half years ago.
(c) Admissions. Although there was some delay, the version for which you fall to be sentenced was advanced on 28 August 2017, which was confirmed on a further interview on 19 September 2018. You did make those admissions.
(d) Remorse. I am satisfied that you are remorseful.
(e) You are of good character, and your good character is supported by the material that was provided in the references.
(f) You pleaded guilty because of the way this matter operated, and because of the way that plea emerged out of the sentence indication process, it is not particularly appropriate to refer to it as early or late.
(g) I am satisfied that you have very good prospects of rehabilitation.
I had indicated at the time of the sentence indication, that I would, when delivering this sentence, point out what the matters were which led me to give that sentence indication, and they are the matters I have just set out.
As I have already said, I characterise the offending of reckless conduct endangering life in about the middle of the range of seriousness, because in particular it involved the inappropriate use of a firearm. I regard the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice as being reasonably serious, although it is mitigated by virtue of the fact that it was not maintained for a long period, and nothing has come forward to indicate that the version now advanced is not accurate.
As I have already observed, members of the Buckley family and their friends find the first version advanced particularly hurtful, because of an attempt by you, LW, to avoid any responsibility for what had happened. It has led members of the family to be very sceptical of the version now before me. It should be noted, however, that even when the matter was to proceed to trial for manslaughter, the present version was being relied upon. It is particularly important to note, when considering the advancement of false versions, that you are dealing with someone who was 17 years of age at that time. The law does recognise that the conduct of the young cannot be judged in the same way as the conduct of mature adults, or in the way that the conduct of mature adults would be gauged. It is also particularly hurtful to family members that you, LW, and Dustin Buckley, were close. That increases the hurt of the false version.
I gave much thought as to whether I would include the following material, because it has potential to be taken that I am attaching some blame to Dustin Buckley, which I do not, either directly or by implication. In the Summary of Prosecution Opening the following appears at paragraph 24, and I quote:
24. An examination of Buckley’s mobile phone indicated the presence of an audio visual file, which showed the following –
(a) LW in possession of a double-barrel shotgun which is pointed at Buckley;
(b) Buckley can be heard to say to LW, “come on mate, fire a shot at me”;
(c) LW opening the shotgun and looking inside both barrels;
(d) LW closing the shotgun and pointing it at Buckley; and
(e) LW pulling the trigger twice.
25. The date of the audio visual file cannot be precisely determined, however the general appearance of LW indicates it was close in time to the shooting.
26. An examination of LW’s mobile phone indicated the presence of an audio visual file dated 27 April 2017, which showed the following:
(a) LW in possession of a single-barrelled air rifle, standing at an estimated six metres from Buckley;
(b) LW instructing Buckley to “hold your fingers up so I don’t blow your fingers off” as Buckley holds up a Victorian Bitter beer can, and
(c) LW firing four shots in the air rifle to the beer can as Buckley holds it.
I include that material because it shows what 17 year olds do, even when it involves firearms. The thought that somebody might be seriously hurt or killed is the thing furthest from their minds. That material seems to add some credibility to the version advanced by you, LW. In the depositions there is a statement from Leading Senior Constable Rooney, who attended the scene at the Neerim East plantation Cat Track. His examination of the scene, taken with the photos and video re-enactment, appears to confirm a number of matters said to have taken place before the shot was fired.
As I say, I do not include that material to be critical of Dustin Buckley, or in a separate sense, critical of you, LW. It just shows, though, what a cautionary tale this is, and that what adults say to young people about the use of firearms is so perfectly accurate about how careful we all need to be.
I have had regard to all the relevant sentencing considerations, including general and specific deterrence, the need for retribution, condemnation and just punishment. I have had regard to the submissions both on your behalf, LW, and by the Crown. The Crown submission at the sentence indication hearing concluded with the following paragraph, and I quote:
In the circumstances, the Crown submits that the range of sentence that is properly open includes a Community Correction Order (CCO) at the lower end, and a confinement in a youth justice centre at the higher end.
I take into account those submissions, but I do note that you will have to live with the fact that you caused Dustin Buckley’s death for the rest of your life. When I raised the matter with Mr Hallows SC, he conceded that if I were to impose a CCO it would need to be for a significant period, and include a significant community work component.
I had you assessed for suitability for release on a CCO and received a favourable report.
Before finalising your sentence LW, I will deal with the matters put on behalf of McConnell.
Plea on behalf of Daniel McConnell
Daniel McConnell, Mr James Anderson who appeared on your behalf made a number of submissions on the plea. His written outline of submissions became Exhibit 6 on the plea. Five references were tendered on your behalf, those references became Exhibit 7A to E on the plea.
The references show that you have the support of the family, and you are well regarded in the circles in which you move. Those who know you regard this conduct as out of character for you. You were recognised as being hardworking, trustworthy and considerate of others. Your parents observed changes in you, and indicate that you have suffered significantly as a result of your involvement in the shooting and its aftermath.
You fall to be sentenced for your part in misleading the authorities about the true circumstances of what happened to Dustin Buckley. That involves your agreement to the false version being put forward, taking place in the false re-enactment, and swearing a false statement. You had nothing directly to gain. You did what you did to support your cousin. It should be added on your behalf that you abandoned the false version less than 12 hours after the event. You did not join in the false version advanced by LW that Dustin Buckley had fired a shot which led to his death by ricochet. On your version of events, which I accept, you do not actually know what happened in the moments leading up to the final discharge of the firearm.
You have been indicted on the single charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. As I have already observed, I regard this as a reasonably serious example of that crime, because it involved at the outset concealing the truth of the causing of, at least, a very serious injury, and later death.
You do not fall to be sentenced for causing the death of Dustin Buckley, but his death provides the necessary context of what course of justice was being the subject of your attempt to pervert. It is however mitigated by your relatively early abandonment of the false version, and that your recantation was before you knew that Dustin Buckley had died.
You are now 27 years of age, and you were 23 at the time of the offending. It is significant though to note that you were the adult in the group. You regarded both LW and Dustin Buckley as friends. LW is your first cousin, his father is your mother’s brother. Your closer friendship with LW developed from 2014, which led to you becoming a friend of Dustin Buckley’s. You met regularly and in addition to other pursuits, you went hunting together. Some of the activities involved the families of Dustin Buckley and LW. You got Dustin Buckley a job with you at a farm in Yannathan when he finished school. You regarded him as one of your best mates.
You did not have extensive experience with firearms, but had obtained your first firearm’s licence in February 2017. You had taken up hunting, which you did every second weekend with LW and Dustin Buckley and their extended families. You say that this is the first time you had been out shooting alone with Dustin Buckley and LW.
You have given up the use of firearms and hunting. It does need to be observed that as the adult in the group, you should have stopped the irresponsible use of firearms. You do not fall to be sentenced for that. It seems however, from what is said in some of the references that I received, you have a clear appreciation of that fact.
In your various interviews you have suggested that it was LW who came up with the false versions, and I accept that. You said of the event, in the interview:
Question 297: ‘Was there a reason why you provided false information in that statement?’
Answer: ‘Probably panic, trying to look after my mate, because he was pretty shaken up.’
Question 298: ‘Yeah, yeah just panicked.’
Question 299: ‘Yep, you know, I’ve got my best mate there who’s got in his head that he’s going to jail. I don’t know about you guys but when your – your mate’s that's – like, you’re that good mates with someone you’d do anything for them, so unfortunately I did the wrong thing. Yeah, I regret doing it’.
I accept that version. I accept that you are remorseful. I accept that your plea to this charge should be regarded as early, because you had originally been charged with manslaughter and reckless conduct endangering life, charges that were not very likely, if at all likely, to be maintained against you.
You are employed full-time as a dairy farmer in a share-farming arrangement. After leaving school you have always been employed, and you have excellent prospects of rehabilitation. You have had these matters hanging over your head for a long time, first awaiting the decisions of whether or not you would be charged, second being charged with manslaughter, and third awaiting trial and then plea. I have taken those matters into account.
I had you assessed for suitability for a Community Correction Order, and you were found to be satisfactory.
It was submitted on your behalf that I should not impose a conviction on you. The principles relevant to whether or not I convict you for the record are set out in the Sentencing Act 1991 in s 8. In exercising this discretion, whether or not to record a conviction, the Court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including: the nature of the offence, the character and past history of the offender, and the impact of recording a conviction on the offender’s economic or social wellbeing, or his or her employment prospects. Except as provided by this or any other act, the finding of guilt without recording conviction must not be taken to be a conviction for any purposes.
On the plea, I was referred to what had been said by the Court of Appeal in DPP v John Candaza & Ors.[1] That was a failed appeal against a non-conviction disposition for four young men charged with armed robbery. It had been the Director’s submission that the crime of armed robbery was just too serious to warrant that disposition. There is one passage which is of particular relevance:
Chernov JA (with whom Winneke ACJ and Phillips JA agreed):
Although I consider the sentences imposed are very light, it seems to me the seriousness of the offence should not wholly dictate the punishment that is appropriate.[2]
[1]DPP v John Candaza & Ors [2003] VSCA 91.
[2]DPP v John Candaza & Ors [2003] VSCA 91, 15.
As I observed in argument, failed Directors’ appeals are of little utility in that they do no more than recognise that the sentence imposed in the particular case was not outside the range of available sentences.
You have no prior convictions and your past history is good. It is not possible to say what impact the recording of conviction would have on your economic or social wellbeing or on your employment prospects. It seems to me that both your social wellbeing and employment prospects are secure.
I must consider the nature of the offence. The purpose of the offending was to conceal the true circumstances of what had happened to Dustin Buckley. That was important, particularly to his family and friends, and for that matter to the community at large. I am prepared to draw that conclusion without reference to the victim impact statements, which might not be admissible on your plea. The false version re-enactment casts suspicion on the final version advanced. The nature of the offence goes to interfering with the proper administration of justice. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that you are an adult capable of controlling and dictating what should have been revealed, I regard it as appropriate to impose a conviction. I will return to your sentence in a moment.
If you would stand up please, LW.
LW, as I have already observed, you have been assessed as suitable for the imposition of a Community Correction Order. I can only release you on that order with your consent. I am minded to release you on a Community Correction Order for three years, and I direct that during the course of the order you perform 200 hours community work. I impose only the core conditions. You must understand that if you breach the order, it is an offence for breaching the order, but more importantly you would fall to be re-sentenced for this offending.
I will ask Mr Norton to approach the dock, and if you are prepared to consent, you should sign the order.
I direct that you be released on a Community Correction Order for three years and commence on 9 March 2021. You must attend at the Warragul Community Correctional Services within two clear working days after the commencement of this order. The mandatory terms that apply to Community Correction Orders are:
(a) You must not commit any other offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time the order is in force. The operative word in that sentence is could;
(b) You must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed under regulations 17 of the Sentencing Regulations 2011;
(c) You must report and receive visits from a community corrections officer;
(d) You must report to the community corrections centre within two clear working days of the order starting;
(e) You must let a community corrections officer know within two working days of your changing of address or job;
(f) you must not leave Victoria without getting permission to do so by a community corrections officer;
(g) you must obey all lawful instructions and directions from a community corrections officer.
I note that you have signed the order, and I have now done so. I indicate that pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 had it not been for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to have been detained in the Youth Justice Centre for three years.
You can sit down, LW.
Daniel McConnell, if you could stand up please.
You have been assessed as suitable for a Community Correction Order, but I have decided you do not need the supervision necessary with such an order. I regard that the work you do and the hours of work you do as making it difficult for you to complete a Community Correction Order. I convict you for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, and I adjourn the further hearing of this matter for 18 months, that is until 9 September 2022. You will be released on an undertaking, provided you consent. The undertaking will start on 9 March 2021, and goes until 9 September 2022.
You must attend the Supreme Court of Victoria for sentencing if and when called upon to do so during the period of the adjournment. You must attend the Supreme Court of Victoria on 9.30am on 9 September 2022, and you must be of good behaviour during the period of the undertaking. I indicate to you that if you are not of good behaviour, it is an offence to breach the adjourned undertaking, and you will fall to be re-sentenced for this matter.
Before releasing you on this, I will need your consent to do so, and I will ask Mr Anderson to approach the dock.
I note that you have signed the undertaking which has now been signed by me. You will be released on adjourned undertaking for 18 months, to be of good behaviour, on the conditions that I have already read to you.
You will be provided with a copy of your order, LW, and you, McConnell, will be provided with a copy of the adjourned undertaking.
I indicate pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had it not been for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you, McConnell, to have been imprisoned for six months, and at the conclusion of six months to be released on a Community Correction Order for a further 12 months. You can sit down.
To the victims present, I understand the tension for you about these things. We do these things according to the law, and what is established over a long period of time about how we sentence people, and we apply to that our own experience of these things. It has this little advantage about it for you. It is the end of one bit of it. It is the end of this phase of the thing. Now, that is not to say for you I think it is the end of things. It is not, I know that. But it is just that there is no more court dates to think about, you know ‘we’re going to go to court’ and so on. So it has at least that little advantage about it.
The other matter that had to be dealt with is, application had been made for an order pursuant to s 464ZF(2) and (9) of the Crimes Act 1958 that you, LW, provide a sample for DNA to be placed on the database, and having considered the seriousness of the circumstances of the forensic sample offences, I am satisfied that in all the circumstances, the making of the order is justified. The seriousness of the circumstance of the offending warrant the order, the granting of the order is in the public interest.
And I need to tell you, LW, that if at the time that you are requested by a police officer to provide a sample, if you do not consent to the taking of a mouth scraping under the supervision of an authorised member of the police force, then the sample to be taken will be a blood sample, and the police may use reasonable force for that forensic procedure to be conducted. But arrangements will be made for you to go to a police station, it is just a swab from inside the mouth, and it is pretty straight forward.
0