R v McKilllop

[2009] NSWDC 107

CITATION:	R v McKilllop [2009] NSWDC 107
HEARING DATE(S):	16/12/2008
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Conlon SC DCJ
DECISION:	Sentenced to a non parole period of twelve years to date from 19 November 2006 which will expire on 18 November 2018. And an additional term of 5 years which will expire on 18 November 2023.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW-particular offences-offences against the person-property offences-robbery
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act
CASES CITED:	R v Hammoud [2000] 118 ACrimR 66 R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130 R v Huynh [2005] NSWCCA 220 Marshall v R [2007] NSWCCR 24 R v Bavadra [2000] 115 ACrimR 152 Pierce v R [1998] 194 CLR 610 R v Ponfield [1999] 48 NSWLR 327
PARTIES:	Regina (Plaintiff) Jamie Scott McKillop (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Paul Stanley ( Crown) Greg West (Defence)

- 1 -

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender Jamie McKillop appears for sentence following his pleas of guilty to nine counts of break enter and commit serious indictable offence (namely stealing) and six counts of aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence (namely stealing). The counts contrary to s 112(1) carry a maximum penalty of fourteen years imprisonment and those contrary to s 112(2) carry a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment. The offender has requested that a further one hundred and thirty nine matters be taken into account on a form 1 schedule. Of the further offences one hundred and two are break, enter and steal, twenty five take and drive a conveyance, six receiving, four goods in custody, one attempt break enter and steal and one of break and enter with intent to steal.

2 The detailed statement of facts is contained in exhibit A. I will not repeat all the facts here, however by way of summary, the indictment containing the above-mentioned fifteen counts involves criminal offending from September 2001 to October 2006. The one hundred and thirty nine further matters on the form 1 schedule occurred between July 2003 and October 2006. There had been an ongoing investigation into a large number of break, enter and steal offences committed within the Wollongong and Lake Illawarra Local Area commands where the offender’s DNA had been identified. A strike force was commenced in early October 2006 to further investigate these matters.

3 On Sunday 19 November 2006 about 4pm police attended the Correctional Centre at Unanderra where the offender had been undertaking weekend detention. This led to arrest and after obtaining a search warrant they attended the offender’s address at 44 Langson Avenue, Figtree. Due to the large volume of suspected stolen property at this location the search warrant was extended through to Wednesday 22 November 2006. There were approximately four thousand five hundred items seized and it was later confirmed that there was a large amount of stolen property from break and enters to which the offender was linked by means of DNA.

4 The offender declined to be interviewed. As a result of the offences committed by the offender over this period of time there was in excess of $1.9 million worth of monies and property stolen.

5 Count 1 in September 2001 involved the offender gaining entry to the ground floor attached garage by cutting off padlocks on the doors. The value of the property stolen was approximately $25,000. In counts 2, 3 and 4 entry was gained to the various premises by either forcing open locked doors and or windows. He ransacked every room in the house and large amounts of property were taken valued respectively at approximately $32,000 dollars, $32,000 and over $100,000 dollars.

6 Count 5 is a count of aggravated break, enter and steal. On 4 June 2005 the offender cut a hole in the back screen door and reaching in, unlocked the door. The sixty five year old victim, Mr Ken Sweeney, who is almost blind, was home alone. The victim awoke about 1am to go to the bathroom and as he got out of bed stepped on to his bedside table drawer which was on the floor. Thinking he must have removed the drawer during his sleep he went back to bed. He woke again at 3am to rustling noises and realising that there was someone in his home he rang the police. Whilst on the phone to the police he heard the offender running out the back door. It appeared the offender had spent a substantial amount of time in the house and consumed a can of coke whilst he was there. The offender’s DNA was later found on the coke can. The home was also ransacked. Property to the value of about $8500 was taken.

7 Counts 6 and 7 are offences of break, enter and steal and were committed in June 2005. Regarding count 6 the victim William Parker aged sixty seven years was home alone doing housework and taking a shower. His house and car keys and wallet were stolen from the lounge room area and then his Holden Rodeo Utility was taken from the carport. Mr Parker found two empty bottles of vodka and orange in the carport area. Later analysis revealed the DNA profile of the offender. A little over 3 weeks later on 1 July 2005 the victim’s wallet and personal cards were found on a street in Corrimal. On the same day the victim’s daughter located the intact vehicle on Mt Keira Road.

8 In count 7 entry to residential premises was gained by removing the fly screen and glass window from the frame of a ground floor laundry window. The victims were home with their young children and were upstairs sleeping. The offender had to walk upstairs past those bedrooms to reach the living area where the victim’s handbag was located and stolen. Crime scene officers located a cigarette butt near the laundry window that was later analysed revealing the offender’s DNA.

9 Counts 9, 10 and 11 are aggravated break, enter and steal offences occurring in September 2005, October 2005 and March 2006 respectively. In count 9 the offender cut a hole in a flyscreen of a front security door and then manipulating the lock opened the door. Ms Evelyn Raymond was home in bed at the time. Her handbag was taken from the dining room and keys inside the bag were used to unlock and take her motor vehicle from the carport. Ms Raymond looked out the window and saw her car being reversed out of the driveway. About four days later the car was located with keys in the ignition.

10 Count 10 involved the jemmying of a rear wooden framed glass door. The seventy three year old victim, Ms Gem Flood, was home alone sleeping in her bedroom. The premises were ransacked. All the kitchen drawers and cupboards had been gone through. The victim’s wallet was taken from the kitchen as were her car keys. Approximately four days later the car was recovered in tact but in a very dirty condition.

11 In count 11 access was gained by jemmying a rear window. The offender entered the bedroom of eighty four year old Nancy Akitt. She woke to the noise of the offender going through her dresser drawers. The offender was using a small torch. Due to fear the victim remained still so as not to disturb the offender and alert him to the fact that she was awake. She coughed and the offender quickly left the room. However the offender again returned to the victim’s bedroom and continued to go through the drawers. Every room in the house apart from the toilet and bathroom were ransacked. Cash and bankcards were taken as well as car keys. Her car was also stolen and several days later was located by police at Mt Ousley. A Berri Juice bottle was found in the car and later revealed the offender’s DNA.

12 Counts 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are counts of break, enter and steal. Count 8 occurred on September 2005 and involved the ransacking of the premises. A partially consumed Krispy Kreme Donut was left in the kitchen. The offender’s DNA was located. A large amount of property to the value of approximately $40,000 was stolen.

13 Counts 12 through to 15 occurred from April 2006 to October 2006. Count 12 involved the taking of property valued at approximately $123,000, count 13 approximately $42,000 and count 14 approximately $40,000.

14 In count 15 the premises had an alarm and the phone line running to the house was cut causing the alarm not to work. Entry was gained by forcing the lock on the ground floor glass sliding door. A chair was used to stand on and disable and remove the alarm speaker. Two alarm sensors were removed and the control box for the alarm concealed inside the linen cupboard was opened and disabled. Every room was ransacked. A floor safe which was bolted to the floor in a spare room wardrobe was pulled up from the concrete floor using a fencing bar taken from the workshop. The safe, assorted jewellery and other household items were stolen as was the victims Honda Accord. Several weeks after the offence the car was found in tact.

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

15 In many ways the task that confronts the Court here is a very difficult sentencing exercise. In R v Hammoud [2000] 118 ACrimR 66 Simpson J stated that the discretion of the sentencing judge in respect of the structuring of offences has to be read subject to what is required in a particular case to reflect the totality of the criminality before the court.

16 In R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130 the Court emphasised that heavy sentences should generally be imposed for offences of break, enter and steal committed by repeat offenders on domestic premises whether or not they were aggravated forms of the offence.

17 In R v Huynh [2005] NSWCCA 220 in response to an argument advanced to the court in that case Simpson J stated as follows para 26:

“The serious indictable offence that the applicant committed was larceny. That offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years. The argument was that since five years is at the very bottom of the range which brings an offence within s 112(2) and since the subsection is capable of encompassing much more serious offences such as sexual assault or any of a variety of offences of violence it is unrealistic to classify a s 112(2) offence where the ‘serious indictable offence is larceny as in the middle range.’”

18 Simpson J went on to state:

“I do not accept the applicant’s argument. The assessment of where the offence lies in the range of offences of its type is to be made by reference to all of the facts and circumstances of the offence and to the range of offences of its kind which come before the court. One circumstance which is here of relevance in that assessment is the quantity and value of the property stolen. It is not to the point where the property was recovered. It was in fact stolen before being recovered. The fact that the maximum penalty for stealing barely takes that offence into s 112(2) does not of itself determine where the offence lies in a scale of gravity of offences against s 112(2). Certainly one might ordinarily expect that offences involving violence would be regarded as more serious than stealing but that does not preclude a finding that an offence under s 112(2) where the ‘serious or indictable offence’ is larceny being classified as in the middle of the range.”

19 In that same case Simpson J went on to refer to the circumstances of aggravation as defined in s 105(A) as follows:

“Circumstances of aggravation are defined in s 105(A) and include that the offender is in company: that he/she is armed with an offensive weapon or implement. That he/she uses corporal violence on the person. That he/she maliciously inflicts actual bodily harm on the person. That he/she deprives any person of his or her liberty and that he or she knows that there is a person or persons in the place where the offence is committed. Again in my opinion the assessment of the objective gravity must be made by reference to the particular facts of the case. There is no gradation of the circumstances of aggravation set out in s 105(A). In saying this I would accept that generally speaking certain of the circumstances of aggravation specified would, as a matter of common sense, appear to be more serious than others. One would expect that being armed with an offensive weapon for example or the use of corporal violence or deprivation of liberty would ordinarily be regarded as more serious than committing an offence in company but it all depends upon the particular circumstances of the individual case.”

20 In Marshall v R [2007] NSWCCR 24 at para 39 the Court said:

“As to the aggravating feature of knowing that a person or persons is present at the premises, matters of relevance will be the type of person present in a premises, for example, where there was a child or some other vulnerable person present and whether the offender knew that the person or persons at the premises were particularly vulnerable. The time of day will be relevant so that if it is late at night when the persons in the premises are likely to be asleep this might indicate that the offence is more serious because the persons are for that reason more vulnerable.”

21 When considering the objective seriousness in respect of the present offences I have had regard to the guideline judgment in R v Ponfield. Included among the many factors mentioned there and relevant to the case against this offender were:

1) The offence is committed whilst the offender is on conditional liberty,

2) The offender has a prior criminal record particularly of like offences,

3) The multiplicity of offences (reflected either in the charges or matters taken into account on a form 1)

4) The value of the stolen property to the victim, whether that value is measured in terms of money or in terms of sentimental value.

22 The offender was given a s 12 suspended sentence of eighteen months for a charge of break, enter and steal on 28 January 2004 at the Wollongong Local Court. He was called up following a breach and he received a sentence of six months periodic detention commencing 13 June 2006. On the same day he was given s 9 bonds to be of good behaviour for twelve months for offences of larceny and obtain money by deception. Accordingly the offender was on conditional liberty in respect of counts 5, 6 and 7 and counts 13, 14 and 15.

23 Whilst the motivation for the offending was as a result of the offender’s addiction to gambling and drugs it is clear they were committed for financial gain.

24 In respect of the counts under s 112(1) each involves a considerable quantity and value of property stolen from domestic premises. In respect of all fifteen counts, all victims would have suffered emotional distress at the loss of that property including items having a sentimental value far in excess of their dollar value. Emotional trauma is the inevitable result that comes with the knowledge that the sanctity of their homes has been invaded. That trauma is no doubt felt to an even greater degree by those victims who were in their homes asleep whilst the offender was committing the offences.

25 The manner in which each offence was committed also indicates at least some degree of planning. On occasions padlocks were cut as were flyscreen security doors. Locks were manipulated and doors jemmied. Cars were also taken from numerous of the premises, no doubt, in order to convey the stolen property.

26 In respect of the nine counts under s 112(1) it is my assessment having regard to the quantity and value of the property stolen that the objective seriousness is at least at the mid range or slightly above for offences of their type. In respect of the six counts under s 112(2) my assessment is that the offences fall within the mid range of objective seriousness for offences of their type.

STANDARD NON PAROLE PERIOD

27 I have also had regard to the fact that offences under s 112(2) carry a standard non parole period of five years imprisonment. While standard non parole periods strictly apply only to offences upon conviction after trial the standard non parole period remains a reference point for the assessment of the appropriate penalty and in respect of the present offences I have had regard to it in exactly that way.

SUBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

28 The offender is now thirty seven years of age. His criminal record is not one that would entitle him to leniency. Both the pre-sentence reports (exhibit B) and the psychologist’s report (exhibit 1) contains certain background material generally provided by the offender. He grew up with his family in Kanahooka. He has a younger brother and younger sister. He shared a bedroom with his brother in a three bedroom family home. They did not get along and while still in primary school a room was made for him in the laundry on the lower level. He informed his psychologist that he had been ‘banished’ to the laundry and that he felt rejected by his family. He claimed that this feeling of rejection has been a paramount source of pain for him throughout his life. His mother, Mrs Audrey McKillop gave evidence in the sentence proceedings. She confirmed the written material that she had provided which is now exhibit 7. Mrs McKillop is the Deputy Superintendent of Keelong Juvenile Justice Centre. She indicated she was unaware of the offender’s feelings concerning that decision to have him reside in the laundry. She stated that the laundry was a large room with a living area off it in the downstairs section of the house.

29 The offender attended Kanahooka High School and left at the conclusion of Year 10. He stated that he skipped a lot of school from Year 7 and managed to keep this behaviour from his parents by intercepting letters from school. Consequently his reading and writing ability was quite poor.

30 On leaving school he commenced a pre-apprenticeship course at TAFE in carpentry, bricklaying, plumbing, painting and decorating. He eventually obtained employment in a recycling firm ER Recycling which later became Thiess. He was employed with this company for about twelve years until he was twenty nine years of age. It was about that time that he began to use ice which interfered with his working ability and he lost his job.

31 He then found work as a drive for another recycling company picking up car bodies. After about two years his drug use again affected his work capacity and he left. Since then he has been tree lopping on a casual basis with various companies until his arrest in November 2006.

32 Concerning his drug history the offender informed the psychologist that he had occasional cannabis use as a teenager. He married his first wife in about 1991. He first used amphetamines with her but gave up completely when she had a bad trip. He did not take drugs again until after he and his wife separated in about 1999. He then met his second partner Alison who had two children from a previous relationship. It was during this relationship that he commenced to use ice and his addition gradually increased. Alison fell pregnant with their first child around 2003 and they began living together. He claimed that the extra responsibility of supporting a family and living with his addiction became more stressful and he used more drugs in response. Since then another two children have been born of that relationship.

33 Apart from his addiction to drugs the offender indicated that he also had an addiction to gambling. He said it was often accompanied by drugs and he would gamble out of boredom sometimes up to a thousand dollars at a time on poker machines. The offender informed the psychologist that he was always affected by drugs when committing the offences. He said, “Whilst on ice he felt quite powerful and unstoppable and he admitted that the break and enters were also another form of addiction for him. He acknowledged keeping many items that he could not sell or pass on to his drug dealer which he added to his own personal collection of goods that he had accumulated from rubbish throw outs.” (This is a reference to the fact that like other members of his family, being his uncle and grandfather, he too was a hoarder of goods).

“He also indicated that he was so affected by the drugs that he would do really foolish things like eat or drink whilst committing the offences and leaving valuable evidence around the crime scene which resulted in his arrest and charges. He states that his compulsive activity was unstoppable and that in a sense he is relieved that he was arrested and incarcerated.”

34 Whilst I am, of course, satisfied that he was drug affected in respect of all of his offending it is also apparent that he maintained the ability to continue working throughout significant periods of this drug addiction and it is also apparent by the manner in which he conducted himself within these premises for considerable periods of time that he could hardly be said to be totally out of control.

REHABILITATION

35 Following the commission of the offences of larceny and obtaining money by deception on 10 November 2005 the offender was accepted into the Merit Program on 8 February 2006. Exhibit 3 is under the hand of Ms Katrina Waters, the service manager of the Merit Program. In her letter to the local court of 7 June 2006 she stated as follows:

“Mr McKillop’s participation in the Merit Program has been positive. He has maintained good attendance and appears to have participated in each counselling session in an honest and committed manner. Mr McKillop’s presentation remained consistent and this consistency coupled with apparent honesty appears to have resulted in Mr McKillop achieving greater insight and awareness into his behavioural patterns and relationship dynamics. Mr McKillop appears to have worked hard to achieve abstinence from methamphetamines and to obtain greater control in regards to his gambling addiction.”

36 When one looks at the time he spent in that Merit Program, what is also apparent on a review of the offences in the indictment is that whilst he was on that Merit Program, the offences in counts 11 and 12 were committed and it should also be noted that offences 13 to 15 were committed whilst he was on a s 9 bond. Also committed during that period he was on the Merit Program being from February to June 2006,were sixteen offences on the form 1 schedule.

37 When one looks at the assertions in exhibit 3 by Ms Waters and then contrasts it against the reality of his continual offending, it gives a greater cause for concern in respect of the question of rehabilitation.

38 There is material before the court that indicates whilst in his present custody he has completed the SMART program. Exhibit 5 is under the hand of Dianne Seal an alcohol and drug worker at the MRRC. She said:

“Jamie’s attendance has been excellent. His participation has been well above average both in terms of addressing his own chemical use issues and providing support to other participants.”

39 The two pre-sentence reports, the first by Ms Linda McEwen (dated 30 July 2007) and the second by Ms Chelsea McMillen (dated 10 October 2008) express different conclusions. Mr West for the offender submitted that it was difficult to understand how the two probation officers could express differing opinions in those reports. Ms McEwen concluded that the offender:

“Claimed that while he had completely ceased his drug abuse it was dramatically reduced prior to this period of remand. He further claimed to have gained control of gambling addictions. He attributes this new found control to his participation in the Merit Program. It is still the opinion of this service that Mr McKillop may still struggle with his addiction upon release given that the same pressures of life still exist. He has also participated well in the in custody program, SMART, which he has appeared to have benefited from.”

40 Ms McEwan assessed him as suitable for a community service order and suitable for periodic detention.

41 On the other hand Ms McMillen in the more recent report stated:

“As noted Mr McKillop has identified his extensive drug history as a factor in his offending behaviour. The offender reiterated this information during the interview for this updated report and expressed concern about relapsing into illicit drug use again post release. He further confirmed he has no further contact with AOD Services since he completed the SMART program in 2007. Mr McKillop appeared to show limited insight into his drug use. He also failed to take responsibility for this crinogenic factor and placed the blame for his use on external factors. The offender further showed limited interest in undertaking relapse prevention interventions and expressed a belief that he would not really benefit from such treatment.”

42 Whilst Ms McMillen noted the earlier assessment regarding community service and periodic detention, she said it was considered that those assessments are superseded and she assessed him as unsuitable for a community service order and eligible but unsuitable for periodic detention owing to his unresolved drug issues.

43 When one looks critically at his participation in that Merit Program which hardly caused a ripple in the continuation of his criminal offending it is not difficult to appreciate Ms McMillen’s assessment.

44 Following consideration of the background material contained in the presentence reports and also the psychologist’s report it seems clear that the offender was not the product of a disadvantaged upbringing. This was confirmed in his letter to the court, exhibit 6, he stated:

“My parents were both good, honest, hardworking people. Our family life wasn’t too bad except I seemed to be the one that got left out and always in trouble for something or other.”

45 In that same letter he confirmed that it was after the breakdown of his relationship with his first wife after about nine years together that he, “Started to fall to pieces and use speed and ecstasy.” This in turn led to an addiction to ice and gambling. He stated that he lost seventy thousand dollars that he had saved for a deposit on a house. Referring to his present custody he said:

“Since coming to this place I have done my best to pick up the pieces and change my life, repair the damage I’ve done to myself. It’s not an easy place to do this but I think it’s the only place I could have done it. Each day in here I’m learning new things about myself that are helping me with my recovery.”

46 He said he has been working the whole of the time that he has been in custody. He said he worked for Wirelink which is a private company run inside the prison. He starts at 8.15am and finishes at 2.15pm Monday to Friday. He referred to the fact that he completed the SMART program and that he was on medication for depression. He says he has been working to improve his literary skills. He stated,

“I am truly sorry for the things I have done, the crimes I have committed. I can’t change that and now have to live with that guilt.”

47 It appears he has given little consideration to the extraordinary damage he has done to the lives of so many people however I do note that in the first pre-sentence report of Ms McEwen she commented, “He was tearful and expressed sorrow for having committed so many offences.” I regard this as indicating at least some evidence of remorse.

PLEA

48 The offender is entitled to have his pleas of guilty taken into account in mitigation on penalty. This is done on two basis, to reflect the utilitarian benefit to the criminal justice system and to reflect contrition. The pleas were entered in the local court and consequently they are pleas at the earliest opportunity. The utilitarian benefit of those pleas will be reflected by a discount of about twenty five percent.

E CLASSIFICATION

49 There was reference in the psychologist’s report that the offender has an E Classification and may not be eligible to undertake certain programs. There is no evidence before me to suggest that such classification would prevent the offender undertaking any such programs. From my own knowledge an E Classification would result in the offender going to a maximum or medium security prison and I am also aware that applications can be made for reclassification. It could not be suggested as with persons who have to serve sentences on protection that the offender’s custody is likely to be more onerous than otherwise would be the case. There is certainly no evidence before me to suggest that that would be the case.

FORM 1 OFFENCES

50 I have had regard to the guideline judgment of Spigelman CJ and the Attorney General’s application under s 37 of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act, at para 18 Spigelman CJ observed that there were a number of propositions that were well established and uncontroversial. First the essence of the process is to impose a longer sentence or to alter the nature of the sentence that would have been imposed if the primary sentence had stood alone. Secondly, the additional penalty may sometimes be substantial. It is incorrect to suggest that it should be small. In R v Bavadra [2000] 115 ACrimR 152 Wood CJ at CL said at para 31:

“There is considerable advantage to the administration of justice and to accused persons for a party facing sentence to clean up the record. For that purpose the form 1 procedure is beneficial. The objective of individual rehabilitation can be advanced by its use since the offender does not have to face a prospect of further trials. There is a utilitarian value and the admission of guilt that is involved so far as there can be a saving in the resources of the law enforcement agencies and the courts concerned. Additionally the sentencing judge is placed in a position where it is possible to sentence the offender for the totality of his or her outstanding criminality to that point. However unless proper weight is given to the additional offences that have been disclosed this procedure fails its true purpose.”

51 I have taken into consideration the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3(A) of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act. I have also had regard to s 5 of that Act and having considered all possible alternatives I am satisfied that given the objective seriousness of the offences no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. In Pierce v R [1998] 194 CLR 610 at para 45 the high court made it clear that a sentence should be appropriate for the offence for which it is imposed. It is a corollary that no sentence should reflect criminality extending beyond the particular offence to which it relates. Consequently if additional or greater criminality inherent in the commission of subsequent offences is to be punished at all, that will necessarily involve some accumulation of sentences.

52 In consideration of the overall structure I have also turned my mind to the question of totality. The fact that there will be accumulation involved in the sentences is sufficient reason to warrant a finding of special circumstances.

53 Mr McKillop will you please stand.

54 In respect of count 1 on the indictment you are sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for two years to date from 19 November 2006 and to expire on 19 November 2008.

55 In respect of counts 2, 3 and 4 you are similarly convicted and I sentence you to fixed terms of imprisonment of three years on each count to date from 19 November 2007 and expire on 18 November 2010. In respect of those first four counts I decline to set a non parole period as the structure of the sentence makes it inappropriate for me to do so.

56 In respects of counts 6 and 7 on each count I sentenceyou to a non parole period of four years commencing on 19 November 2008 and expiring on 18 November 2012. On each count I impose an additional term of imprisonment for two years expiring on 18 November 2014.

57 On counts 9, 10 and 11 on each count I sentence you to a non parole period of four years commencing 19 November 2010 and expiring on 18 November 2014. On each count I sentence you to an additional term of two years to expire on 18 November 2016.

58 In respect of counts 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 on each count I sentence you to a non parole period of three years commencing 19 November 2012 and expiring on 18 November 2015. In respect of each count I impose an additional term of three years to expire on 18 November 2018.

59 In respect of count 5, I sentence you to a non parole period of five years commencing on 19 November 2013 and expiring on 18 November 2018. I sentence you to an additional term of five years to expire on 18 November 2023. In respect of this last mentioned sentence I have taken into account the one hundred and thirty nine further matters on the form 1 schedule.

60 The total effect of this sentence is as follows, that you are sentenced to an effective non parole period, that is, a minimum term of twelve years to date from 19 November 2006 which will expire on 18 November 2018. The additional term of five years expires on 18 November 2023. Mr Crown?

61 STANLEY: Just in relation to the s 166 certificate your Honour. Has your Honour got a copy of it, I can hand it up?

62 HIS HONOUR: I think that there was a copy attached to the exhibit A.

63 STANLEY: I just ask that the back up offences that are listed there be dismissed and I also note that the related offences, the goods in custody have been dealt with on the form 1.

64 HIS HONOUR: In relation to all of those offences marked A on the s 166 certificate, the back up charges are all withdrawn and dismissed.

65 STANLEY: Yes, and if I could just have an order that the property that is presently in police custody if that can be forfeited to the Crown your Honour?

66 HIS HONOUR: Yes all of the property that is presently in police custody will be forfeited to the Crown.

67 STANLEY: And I can also note that I did check those matters that were committed on the s 12 and all whilst he was serving PD all of the s 9 bonds were made out, correct.

68 HIS HONOUR: Yes thank you. Thank you Mr McKillop.

oOo