R v Piket
[2006] VSC 238
•5 July 2006
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1477 of 2006
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| JUSTIN WILLEM PIKET |
---
JUDGE: | EAMES JA | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 2 June 2006 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 5 July 2006 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Piket | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2006] VSC 238 | |
---
Criminal law – Sentence – Murder – Attempted murder – Aggravated burglary – Pleas of guilty – Amphetamine psychosis – Offender aged 25 at time of offences – Prior convictions, but not for offences of violence – Sentenced for attempted murder as serious violent offender – Principle of totality applied – Sentenced to 17 year’s imprisonment for murder; 8 years for attempted murder – 2 years for aggravated burglary – Total effective sentence 20 years and six months’ imprisonment; non-parole period of 15 years and six months - Sentencing Act 1991 – s.6D, 6E.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr A. Tinney | Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr S. Cash | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Justin Willem Piket, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Eustace Willenberg on 9 June 2005 (Count 1), to aggravated burglary (Count 2), to attempted murder of your father, Willem Piket (Count 3), to possession of a drug of dependence, namely amphetamine (Count 4) and, pursuant to section 359AA of the Crimes Act 1958, you have pleaded guilty to the summary offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime, to wit, $650 cash, an offence under s.195 of the Crimes Act.
That last count has been dealt with in this Court with your consent.
The offences were committed on 9 and 10 June 2005. You were then aged 25 years and are now aged 26 years. At that time, you lived with your girlfriend, Rhianna Allcott, in Langwarrin. You had a history of misuse of drugs and alcohol and your abuse of drugs, in particular amphetamine, was to play a significant role in your offending, as I shall later discuss. After being arrested for these offences and questioned by police you told the police in the record of interview, that on the last occasion that you injected amphetamine prior to the offences, it made you feel paranoid, “schizophrenic”. On that occasion, you took one or two grams of amphetamine in one episode.
In the two weeks before the offences were committed Ms Allcott noticed that your mood had changed and you were spending more time away from home. You were speaking aggressively about your parents, initially directing your hostility to your mother and telling Ms Allcott that you were having flashbacks about your childhood, in which you recalled some form of abuse by your father, the details of which you did not describe to her. Prior to the offences, you had told Ms Allcott’s younger brother that you hated your mother because she had abandoned you. When police interviewed you after the offences, you told them that they were motivated by your belief that as a child you had been sexually abused by both your mother and father and that your girlfriend’s grandfather, whom you killed, had, you believed, sexually molested your girlfriend when she was a child. All of the accusations made against these people were without foundation, as you now acknowledge, but you contend that they were delusions caused by your drug abuse.
Acting under the delusions of sexual abuse, you resolved on 9 June 2005 that you would kill your mother. After smoking cannabis at home you left the house, taking with you a number of knives. You drove to an address in Thomas Street, Baxter, where you believed your mother lived. She had, in fact, lived there in the past but at this time was no longer a resident there. The events at these premises form the basis of count 2 aggravated burglary.
The occupant of the house at Thomas Street was a young woman who resided there with her partner and their five month old daughter. None of those people knew you, nor you them. The woman was working on her computer at 12.15 am when she heard the noise of the side gate being unbolted and her laundry door being opened. She then saw you, a stranger, standing in the doorway. Although you were then armed with a knife, the occupier did not see the knife but nonetheless was alarmed by your presence. You put your hands above your head and said, “I’m bad”. She screamed and you turned and left the house. It is not disputed by the Crown that but for your later admission that you had been armed with a knife when you entered the premises, the Crown would have been unable to establish that fact.
After departing the house at Thomas Street, you decided to look for your mother at another address, in Stony Point Road, Crib Point. When you got to that property, you looked in the window but, as you told police, the scene gave you “the creeps”, so you drove off. You described that property as “my nightmare house”, being the home in which you grew up.
Having been unable to enter that property at Crib Point, then, as you told police, “I just – for some reason, drove straight around the corner to Eustace’s”. Eustace Willenberg was the grandfather of your girlfriend. You told police that you went to his property for the purpose of killing him, “cause I thought he was a child molester, maybe”. You told them that your girlfriend “maybe” had had as hard a life as your own, and said, “I thought that the grandpa could have been the same as my – my mum and that”. You told police that your girlfriend had never accused her grandfather of any sexual abuse, but you had decided for yourself that she was blocking things out. She had in fact told you, as you said, that she loved her grandfather and that he was a nice man. You believed, however, that that was not so, and that he was a child molester, and you said that you were doing a service for the police by killing him. When you arrived at his home, the deceased man, who was aged 72 years, was sitting in his living room, watching television. Also present in the house was his daughter, aged 21 years. You entered the house armed with the knife and when he rose from his chair and approached you, you stabbed him repeatedly and forcefully, with the intention of killing him.
The autopsy revealed that Mr Willenberg received 20 stab wounds to the left upper body with damage to internal organs, including the heart, lungs, liver and spleen, and damage to the ribs. In addition, there were five wounds to the right shoulder and wounds to the forearm and the back, as well as defensive wounds to the hand. In all, putting aside defensive wounds, there were 31 stab wounds to the body of the deceased, which wounds caused his death. Having killed Mr Willenberg, you left the premises but then returned to collect the knife, which you had dropped. You cleaned the knife, using the kitchen tap and sink for that purpose and whilst you were doing so Simone Willenberg (who had been in terror in her bedroom, having heard the sounds of what she later appreciated had been the attack on her father) went to investigate the sound of running water, hoping that it might have been her father using the tap. She then came upon you in the kitchen. You covered your face with your arm and, you fled.
You returned to your home, disposed of some of your clothing and showered and dressed. After watching television for a time, you went to sleep. In the early morning, your girlfriend, Ms Allcott, learned of the death of her grandfather. You pretended to know nothing of it, and attended with her at a family function, held to mourn the death of Mr Willenberg. On that occasion, you made an odd remark, stating that Ms Allcott’s grandfather was an animal, but others present paid no attention to you, as they were upset and grieving and you did not repeat what you had said.
At about 7.50 p.m. on the evening of 9 June, that is, some 15 hours after the killing, you drove into a bottle shop at the Westernport Hotel in Hastings. You had a baseball bat that you held by your side as you went to the refrigerator from which you took a cola bottle, and returned to your car. You were intending to drive off without paying, when you were confronted by the attendant. He was intimidated by you threatening him by holding up the baseball bat. You departed the hotel. That incident was captured by close circuit TV, which disclosed the registration number of your girlfriend’s vehicle, which you were driving. No charge arose out of these events. I relate them as part of the narrative, only.
You returned to the address where you believed your mother lived in Crib Point. At that house you looked inside and saw two men, whom you did not know. You were about to depart the scene when, as you told police, you saw a van drive past which reminded you of the sort of vehicle your father used to drive. You told police “it just sent me red. I just drove straight to Venus Bay.”
You drove all the way from Crib Point to Venus Bay where your father lived. You entered with the baseball bat, forcing entry to the house and upon approaching your father, who had been woken by the noise of your entry, immediately struck him to the head with the bat and then struck him further blows to the head as he fell on the ground. In all, he was struck some ten times to the head and body and the attack only stopped when his partner, Miss Whittingslow came out and, thinking she recognised you, called out your name. You then departed the scene. You told police that although the main blows were to your father’s legs, you intended to kill him when you entered the property. Apart from the baseball bat you had armed yourself with a machete but you had left that in the car.
Your father declined hospitalisation for his injuries but attended his local doctor, who reported that he suffered multiple bruises all over the body, a ragged deep laceration to the left forearm and to the scalp and sutures were inserted.
In consequence of the vehicle having been identified at the bottle shop police had attended your home, looking for you, but you were not at home. That evening, when you returned to your home, Ms Allcott told you the police were searching for you about the larceny of the soft drink. You told Ms Allcott that you had broken your father’s leg and said to her that you were having flashbacks suggesting that he had abused you as a child. You said to her that up until the other day you had loved your father.
On the following morning, the 10 June, you left home again still searching for your mother with the intention of killing her. You went to an address in Thomas Street, Baxter where she in fact then lived. Your mother was not at home and after attempting to gain entry to the house, you left. At about 1.00 p.m. you drove to an address in Frankston, armed again with the baseball bat, and knocked on the front door. That was an address where your mother had once lived. When the male occupant opened the door, you were holding the baseball bat above your head, as though about to strike, but upon realising that he was unknown to you, you lowered the baseball bat, apologised and departed the scene. No charge has been brought against you for the incident, which again is related solely for the purpose of context.
At about 2.30 p.m. that afternoon, you drove your vehicle into Disney Street, Crib Point, the street in which the murder had taken place. You approached an ice cream vendor and forced the sum of $650 cash onto him by placing the money into his shirt when he refused it. You said that you wanted him to provide free ice cream to all the local children. When interviewed by police about this incident, you said that the money was the proceeds of the sale of drugs by you. That incident is the subject of the summary charge of possessing the proceeds of crime which was dealt with under section 359AA of the Crimes Act.
When arrested at 3.20 p.m. at Crib Point, a plastic bag was located in your vehicle which you admitted contained amphetamine. Approximately 3.5 grams, mixed, of amphetamines was seized. That is the subject of count 4. It is accepted by the Crown that the quantity of drugs was for personal use. Once detained by police, you fully co-operated, giving two lengthy records of interview, one on audio tape and the other video taped, and you also participated in a video re-enactment of the murder.
Count 1 carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Counts 2 and 3 both carry a maximum of 25 years’ imprisonment; Count 4 a maximum of five years’ imprisonment and the summary charge under s.195 of the Crimes Act carries a maximum of two years’ imprisonment.
I return to the question of your history of drug misuse.
You had smoked cannabis from the age of 13 and commenced using amphetamine at the age of 14. By the age of about 24 you were using up to 2 grams of amphetamine per day. From time to time, you had used other drugs. You commenced use of heroin at the age of 19, and developed an addiction, from which you subsequently weaned yourself. You had also taken other drugs including LSD, ecstasy, ketomine and as a schoolboy had been a regular sniffer of solvents. You were a regular and heavy user of cannabis.
Consultant psychiatrist, Dr Danny Sullivan, examined you and in his report recounted your statement that your use of amphetamine produced paranoia and that on occasion you heard voices and you would believe that media reports were referring to you. Dr Sullivan concluded that at the time of these offences, it was likely that you were suffering an amphetamine-induced psychotic disorder, a product of the large quantity of amphetamine you had consumed in the weeks leading up to the offences. Although the last reported consumption of amphetamine (which you took intravenously) was approximately seven days prior to the offences, Dr Sullivan considered that it was amphetamine use which produced your psychotic state. He thought, however, that it was also significant that you were continuing to use substantial quantities of marijuana up to and on the day of the offences.
Dr Sullivan noted that in your video interview you displayed recurrent nose wiping and touching of your mouth, mannerisms which he attributed not only to awkwardness but as stereotypies, that is, repetitive involuntary movements which are frequently seen in persons intoxicated with amphetamines. Although, in Dr Sullivan’s opinion, you were still psychotic at the time of your video interview and re-enactment (as your mannerisms suggest) you were nonetheless coherent, and capable of answering intelligently. You were therefore fit to be interviewed.
Some of your answers to police interviewers plainly do support the conclusion reached by Dr Sullivan that these events occurred when you were in an abnormal state due to your drug psychosis. For example, when asked why you killed Mr Willenberg, you said that you thought that he was probably a child molester and when asked what reason you had to think that, you said “probably my own insecurities about my family”. You told the police that after you killed him you didn’t know what you were thinking, really; you were just blank. You told police that on that night you had smoked marijuana, possibly one or two grams, which you described as “not much”, and that you had finished a bong immediately before departing the house intent on killing your mother. As to the attempt to murder your father, you said “I sort of went there – its like I didn’t even know I was going there. I just went there with this feeling I was going to take his life, yeh”. You told police you saw yourself as doing society a favour and that it was as though you were in a movie. You said you got paranoid and had a “weird feeling”.
You told police that you offered money to the ice cream vendor because you felt sorry for the kids. You felt they could not afford ice cream. When asked why you returned near the scene of the death, you said that you had forgotten about it, and it was not in your mind. Throughout the interview, you repeated your belief that you had been the subject of abuse which had been kept secret. You broke down in tears describing having been “raped, bashed, drowned”.
Dr Sullivan provided a history in which he recorded that your relationship with your mother had been poor, and you described her as emotionally abusive. In contrast to what you had told police you denied to Dr Sullivan that you had ever been sexually abused as a child, by either parent.
You are one of four siblings, only your eldest sister now maintaining any contact with you, following these events. At school you had behavioural problems and were subjected to bullying. There was much truanting and you left school at the start of year 8. As noted earlier, you commenced substance abuse at an early age and you also reported that you had frequently cut yourself and you had home made tattoos with words such as “Born mentally ill”.
You described episodes of animal cruelty in which you engaged as a child and you said that you were, in your own words, “kicked out of home” by your parents. Notwithstanding that, you worked with your father as a builder’s labourer and maintained regular employment with him. At the time of these events, however, you were not working, because your father had travelled overseas and upon his return, business was not sufficient to employ you.
You told police that since you were aged about ten you had blocked something out in your head. You told them “I just went on in life thinking I was going to be – I had something inside of me that, I don’t know, that was violent. Like, it made me violent. I used to chop up animals when I was a kid. Like, you name it, I’ve done the lot, and then I met the missus and I went straight and I have had a good life. All I do is choof, and that we go out, you know what I mean? Just a good life. And then all of a sudden my mate died two years’ ago, which was cool. I dealt with it, but then everything around me started closing in, for some reason.” By “choof” you meant smoke cannabis. You said that things started getting to you because you were having “a bit of speed” and you were getting flashbacks in your head which produced hatred in you and a desire to kill your mother and father. You said that as a child you engaged in self-harm; that you should have been treated in a psychiatric hospital but nothing was done for you by your parents. You then decided that your parents had been into incest and you thought you would do the right thing and kill all child molesters. You told the police “Oh mate, I thought I was a bloody vigilante for you police, to be honest.” You told police “I didn’t do it out of looniness. I did it – I knew what I was doing man.”
Dr Sullivan concluded that in childhood you had suffered the psychological condition of conduct disorder, and possibly also both attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and adjustment disorder. He said that conduct disorder is not an adult diagnosis and ADHD, if present, had not persisted into adulthood. Whilst your teenage years may have been accompanied by an adjustment disorder, he said it was not so sustained as to constitute personality disorder. He concluded that you met the diagnosis of suffering poly-substance abuse. Dr Sullivan was satisfied that you had developed delusional beliefs by virtue of your drug abuse, believing that you had been sexually abused and that you had experienced recovered memories of such abuse. You told him that these experiences led to the offences. Dr Sullivan was satisfied that there was no underlying condition, such as paranoid schizophrenia. Mr Cash relied on that assessment as bearing on your prospects of rehabilitation, once you had eliminated drug use.
Although he concluded that you did not suffer a psychiatric illness and that there was no apparent need for psychiatric treatment, Dr Sullivan recommended that you participate in extensive drug and alcohol counselling and education, and that you ought take opportunities for further education and vocational skills if you are to avoid later substance abuse.
You have a history of offending, but no offences of direct relevance, save for one burglary conviction. In June 1997, on two counts of possessing cannabis and two counts of handling stolen goods, you were released on a Community Based Order, which you breached and were then sentenced to two month’s imprisonment, which sentence was wholly suspended and which order was again breached, whereupon you served two months’ imprisonment. On the 17 February 1998 you were sentenced on five counts of theft, a count of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, two counts of attempted theft, and you were also dealt with on that date for the breach of the Community Based Order to which I have earlier referred. You were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, which aggregate sentence was wholly suspended, but the suspended sentence was later restored for breach of the order and you served 90 days’ imprisonment, served cumulatively upon other sentences. On 25 May 1999 you were dealt with on counts of burglary, theft, failing to answer bail and breach of the suspended sentence and were sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of two months, served cumulatively upon other sentences.
Of those various offences, the most directly relevant is, of course, burglary but, significantly, there are no prior convictions relating to violence.
Inevitably, such terrible events produce many victims, in addition to those directly attacked. Victim impact statements have been filed by Alison Whittingslow (the partner of your father, who was present when he was attacked), and from Willem Piket (your father), Emma Jane Piket (your sister) and Simone Willenberg (the daughter of the man you murdered and who was in the house when he died). These have all been carefully considered by me. None of those persons required that their victim impact statements be read in whole or part in open court. It is however appropriate that I summarise their statements.
Ms Whittingslow described how these events had changed her life completely, the stress, worry and depression that followed the attack and the trauma of constantly reliving the events. As for your father, his injuries caused him to cease employment and he was still off work and living on sickness benefits at the time he made his statement, almost a year after the events. He endures pain and has difficulty walking, due to his injuries. The primary cause of your father’s grief is not, however, related to his own injuries but to the impact of your actions on the family. Your conduct has destroyed relationships within the family, not least of which is what he believed had been his own good relationship with you. In common with others, his grief is compounded by what seems to them to be the incomprehensibility of your actions. Your sister Emma Jayne Piket does not live in Australia. In the relevant parts of her victim impact statement, she indicates that her primary anxiety is for your father and the trauma he has suffered by your actions, but her anxiety in that regard represents hardship suffered by her too.
The victim impact statement of Simone Willenberg is exceptionally poignant and powerful. It was she who found the body of her 72 year old father and who rang 000. She had been in her bedroom in the house she shared with her father and heard what she later realised had been the noises of the attack, and of you, the attacker, cleaning the knife in the kitchen. Her father was the most important person in her life; she had shared part of every day of her life with him and he was her guide and supporter in life. It is no surprise to learn that she suffered acute post traumatic stress disorder and chronic shock syndrome. She was a university student with only two subjects to complete to receive her degree, an exam for one of which she had been due to sit the morning after the death. She has been unable to complete her degree. She was working part time in a private nursing home and had to give up that work due to the stress of patient deaths. She suffers acute insomnia, and nightmares and a serious skin condition. Each day is marked by flashbacks to these dreadful events. She suffers great guilt, feeling that she failed to protect her father. That sense of guilt is entirely unjustified, but the pain she suffers in that regard is so real to her that reassurance from others can not quell her anxiety. I hope that in time she can accept that nothing she could have done would have saved her father’s life or reduced his suffering.
Your counsel, Mr Cash, contended in mitigation of sentence that the following factors were of importance:
●First, the fact that you were under a drug induced psychosis at the time of the offending. He accepted that a self-induced drug psychosis could not justify any substantial reduction in an otherwise appropriate sentence. The bizarre nature of your offending is highlighted by the fact that, as you now acknowledge, you had a good relationship with your father, had worked with him for years and regarded yourself as a good mate.
●Secondly, as a result of these offences neither parent has any further communication with you, and only one of your three siblings has any dealings with you.
●Thirdly, you have lost your girlfriend with whom you were in love, and had been with for three years. You regarded her as your future wife. Counsel submitted that when you stabbed the deceased man your psychosis led you to believe that you were acting to support Ms Allcott. Indeed, when you concluded the stabbing of the deceased you announced “I love the girl.”
You have, in effect, lost almost all friends and family by your violent actions. You have two children, aged six years and three years, by a woman with whom you were in a previous relationship but whom you have had no contact for three and a half years. You have no contact at all with those children.
In addition to the matters already addressed, Mr Cash emphasized the following matters, all of which I take into account:
· Your pleas of guilty to all offences, which were made at the very first opportunity; indeed they were entered in the Magistrates’ Court.
· Your remorse, as evidence by your pleas of guilty.
· Your co-operation with police, and full confession.
· The fact that your prior convictions do not contain any convictions for violence.
Mr Cash acknowledged that some cumulation of the sentences was inevitable but submitted that all of the incidents occurred as part of one bizarre and violent episode. Accordingly, he submitted, it is inappropriate that substantial portions of the sentences should be ordered to be served cumulatively.
Mr Cash submitted that a lower than normal non-parole period should be set so as to avoid imposing a crushing sentence. He submitted, too, that the principal of totality should be kept to the fore.
On count 3, you fall to be sentenced as a serious violent offender by virtue of section 6D(f) of the Sentencing Act 1991. The prosecutor indicated, however, that the Crown does not contend that this is an appropriate case for the imposition of a disproportionate sentence. By virtue of section 6E, any sentence imposed on you as a serious violent offender must, unless otherwise ordered, be cumulative upon any other uncompleted sentence, or any sentence imposed today. Thus, the sentence on count 3, for attempted murder, would be served wholly cumulatively upon any other sentences imposed on you today, unless I ordered otherwise. However, Mr Tinney did not contend that no measure of concurrency should be ordered.
In R v Sebalj[1], Vincent, J.A., with whom Maxwell, P. agreed, held that it would be seldom that self-induced psychosis would result in a significant lowering of sentence, or that it would reduce the level of moral culpability. In that case (in which I note that Dr Sullivan also provided a report, one in which he did diagnose psychiatric illness) the Court held that the extent of the psychosis did justify a reduction of the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed, but as Vincent, J.A. observed the circumstances were, as he said, “particularly unusual”. In that case there was a real question whether the psychosis, which was described as being acute, was in fact not merely drug induced but was the early onset of what was later diagnosed to be paranoid schizophrenia. Furthermore, the appellant had taken many steps to obtain treatment for his condition, and the court regarded his moral culpability as being low and the appellant as having quite good prospects of rehabilitation. That was a case, as Maxwell, P. held[2], which clearly came within the principles of R v Tsiaras,[3] being a serious psychiatric illness not amounting to insanity.
[1][2006] VSCA 106, at [15]; see, too, R v Semaan [2003] VSCA 163, at [10]-[13] per Buchanan, J.A., Vincent J.A. and Harper A.J.A. agreeing.
[2]Sebalj at [19]-[21].
[3][1996] 1 V.R. 398
Mr Tinney submitted that notwithstanding the presence of drug-induced psychosis the offences were, in any event, serious instances of each. In particular, the murder was a very serious instance of the offence, as was the attempted murder and, also, the aggravated burglary. In each instance there was a person in the security of their own home, attacked at night or threatened with attack. He submitted that you would have had plenty of opportunity to consider what you were proposing to do as you drove to Venus Bay from Crib Point. Mr Tinney submitted that general and specific deterrence remain very important considerations, and by virtue of your status as a serious violent offender, the protection of the community for offences to which that description applies, is the primary consideration to which the court should have regard. Nonetheless, Mr Tinney accepted that by virtue of R v Tsiaras and R v Sebalj it was appropriate that there be some moderation in the application of principles of general and specific deterrence. He accepted, too, that your level of culpability could be regarded as reduced by virtue of your condition, but submitted that factors of denunciation and just punishment, together with protection of the community, remain important to the case. He submitted that it was appropriate that a degree of cumulation be imposed. I agree with these submissions and, in particular, that both general deterrence and specific deterrence remain important in your case.
Mr Cash submitted that the fact that these crimes arose out of self-induced psychosis and not an underlying psychiatric condition was relevant since the fact that you did not have a permanent psychotic condition improved your prospects of rehabilitation. Be that as it may, whilst I make some allowance for it, the impact of the self-induced psychosis in your case, when compared, for example, with the situation described in Sebalj, is not such as to significantly reduce your moral culpability. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that your prospects of rehabilitation are more than fair.
I will make orders which impose only a modest degree of cumulation of the sentences imposed on the offences other than murder. The modesty of the extent of cumulation may appear to undervalue the damage suffered by the victims of those offences, but I have regard to the principle of totality, and substantial cumulation would, I consider, produce a crushing sentence which, having regard not only to your relative youth but also, in particular, to the absence of prior convictions for violence, would be an inappropriate outcome.
I make an order under s.78(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997 for the forfeiture and disposal of property as set out in the schedule attached to the Disposal Order signed by me. I make that order upon being satisfied that the property therein identified was used in connection with the offence of murder, and that one item of property is a drug of dependence. I also make an order for forfeiture of $650 being the proceeds of crime.
I make an order that pursuant to s.464ZFB(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, the forensic sample and related material obtained pursuant to your informed consent on 10 June 2005 be retained. This order is made by virtue of the seriousness of the offence, the relevance of your prior convictions and as being justified in the public interest. It is also made on the basis that you consent to the order.
I sentence you as follows:
Count 1 You will be sentenced to 17 years for murder.
Count 2You will be sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for aggravated burglary.
Count 3You will be sentenced to eight year’s imprisonment for attempted murder.
Count 4You will be sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for possession of a drug of dependence
On the summary offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime, you will be convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment
By virtue of s.16(1) of the Sentencing Act the sentences on counts 2, 4 and on the summary offence would be served concurrently with the sentence on count 1 unless ordered otherwise. I make no contrary order with respect to the sentences on count 4 and on the summary offence, and thus, they will be served concurrently with the sentence on count 1.
As to the sentence on count 2 I order that six months of that sentence be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed on count 1.
As I earlier stated, by operation of law, the whole of the sentence on count 3 would be served cumulatively with the sentence on count 1 unless I ordered otherwise. It is appropriate to order otherwise. Thus, I order that three years of the sentence on count 3 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on count 1.
Those orders produce a total effective sentence of 20 years and six months’ imprisonment. I order that you serve 15 years and six months’ imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
I declare that you have served 391 days pre-sentence detention. I direct that the details of that declaration be entered in the records of the court.
Pursuant to s.6F of the Sentencing Act I direct that it be entered in the records of the Court that that you have been sentenced on count 3 as a serious offender.
- - -