R v Ross
[2005] VSC 428
•27 October 2005
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1451 of 2004
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| ANDREA ELLEN ROSS |
---
JUDGE: | KELLAM J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16 September 2005 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 27 October 2005 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Ross | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2005] VSC 428 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of guilty to manslaughter following finding by a jury of fitness to be tried – Killing of mother by schizophrenic daughter – Principles of R v Tsiaras applicable – Sentence of five years and six months with non-parole period of two years and six months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr B. Kayser | Solicitor to the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr T. Wraight | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Andrea Ross, I am about to sentence you upon your plea of guilty to the charge of the manslaughter of your mother, Iris Ross. The crime of manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. However, in all the circumstances before me, the formulation of an appropriate sentence is a most difficult task. For that reason, and so that you, and others, may understand the sentencing process in which I am engaged, I consider it appropriate to set out in some considerable detail the background to the offence and the circumstances leading up to your plea of guilty.
Iris Ross was a much loved mother and grandmother who met her death on or about 2 August 2003. On that day your son Leo, who was then aged 19 years, found his grandmother’s body lying in bed at her home in Baldhill Road, Pakenham. Leo had lived with his grandmother for a period of 18 months leading up to the date of her death. She had played a special part in his life as a grandmother, for reasons which I set out in more detail below, throughout his whole lifetime. Without doubt, the circumstances in which he found his grandmother were highly distressing for him.
Examination of the body of Iris Ross was conducted that day by Dr David Ranson, a highly qualified and experienced forensic physician. Dr Ranson found evidence of recent injury. In particular, there was bruising over the front of her left shoulder, an abrasion to her chin, bruising over her left face, bruising to her left chest and left loin, bruising over her right forearm and a number of other bruises. However, in general, the bruising was not associated with large quantities of underlying bruising of subcutaneous tissue. The bruising noted over her body was present predominantly in areas of bony prominence. However, in addition, examination of your mother’s chest showed evidence of extensive rib fractures on both sides.
On her right side there was evidence of protrusion of fractured rib ends into her right pleural cavity associated with bleeding and collapse of her right lung. Dr Ranson said, “A complicated fall involving sudden pressure to the chest could cause a number of these rib fractures”. He also said, “A compressive force to the chest could also result in some of the fractures seen in this case”. He conceded that a very severe compressive force could cause all of the fracturing.[1] Dr Ranson stated that following acute chest injury of this type an individual would have some difficulties in breathing which would be apparent to observers. However, Dr Ranson conceded that it would be difficult to estimate the time interval that would elapse between the injury and death. He stated, “It is possible that an individual could survive for an hour or so”.
[1]Depositions p.120.
The background relationship between you and your mother
You are now aged 47 years, having been born on 14 February 1958. In your early twenties you were diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. In your mid twenties you met one Alan Navratal who was a person also suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and in due course you gave birth to twins, Sean and Leo Ross. You and Navratal did not continue your relationship for a lengthy period after the birth of the twins.
Over ensuing years, you had considerable difficulty looking after the twins by reason of the continuing problems that your paranoid schizophrenia caused you. By reason of your illness, your mother, Iris Ross, played a major part in the rearing of your twin sons and, in effect, in many ways was their surrogate mother. As stated above, your son Leo had lived with his grandmother for a period of 18 months leading up to her death. You did not live with her, having your own premises in Pakenham but you did visit your mother regularly and from time to time you stayed overnight. You stayed overnight with your mother on the night of Friday, 1 August 2003.
That evening you had dinner at your mother’s house with your mother, your son Leo and one of his friends. Leo went out with his friends for that night and did not return until the following day when he found his grandmother dead in her bed. When he left the premises at about 7.30 pm on 1 August his grandmother had no injury to her face nor any other obvious sign of injury.
The next morning, at approximately 9.51 am, one Josephine Constable, the sister‑in‑law of Iris Ross, telephoned her. It was Josephine Constable’s habit to do so daily. You answered the telephone. You told Josephine Constable that your mother was not there and that she had gone down the street with Lauren. Lauren Anderson is a former girlfriend of Leo Ross and had developed a close acquaintanceship with Leo’s grandmother. However, the evidence is that Lauren Anderson had neither seen nor spoken to Iris Ross for more than one week prior to her death.
Soon after this telephone conversation took place Leo Ross returned home. On his way home he saw you walking along Baldhill Road away from his grandmother’s house and towards the Pakenham township. It was soon after this that he found his grandmother in bed with visible injuries to her face. His grandmother was found to be cold and the opinion was formed by a nurse who attended that she had been dead for some time. Iris Ross appeared to have been tucked into the bed with the bedcovers pulled over her neatly.
Soon after you were seen by Leo Ross you went to the Pakenham railway station. Video footage obtained from the station security system established that at 10.27 am you were wearing a cream coloured jumper. That cream coloured jumper was seized subsequently by police, having been found in the washing machine of your home. Examination of the jumper established that on it there were bloodstains which matched the DNA profile of Iris Ross.
Police investigations established that whilst you were on the platform of the Pakenham railway station you spoke to a young woman and told her that you were travelling to Sale. You asked her if you might use her mobile telephone to telephone your son Sean. You told Sean Ross that you were travelling to the city to have a “look around”. In fact you took the 11.00 am train from Pakenham to Traralgon and made enquiries at the Latrobe Visitor Information Centre as to connecting services to Maffra. You then caught a train back to Pakenham, arriving at approximately 3.45 pm and walked home to your house. Police found you at your home at 4.25 pm that day and you were taken to the Pakenham Police Station where you were interviewed formally. On route to the police station you were told of your mother’s death. You said, “Oh well, she was over 100 so it’s to be expected”. You later repeated this remark in your taped record of interview. Whilst you were at the police station, investigators found in your possession a “Gippsland Heritage Trail” brochure with handwriting on it. The legible parts of that handwriting included a note which said, “Fell on back porch. Went to bed. I was too scared to tuck in. I was afraid she was … “.
Before being interviewed by police you were assessed by a medical practitioner for your fitness to engage in such an interview. You were then interviewed with an independent third person present. You told police that your mother had been “ill for a long time” and “under a lot of stress”. You said that you had last seen her alive that morning, although subsequently you said that you had last seen her alive the previous evening when she had said goodnight to you. On another occasion you said that you last saw your mother alive when you were cooking, cleaning and gardening. You told police that you had not noticed the injuries to your mother’s face. You told police that your mother had had an accident with a wheelbarrow, but that you were not there at the time this had happened, and that that was something your mother had told you about. When asked about bruising to your mother’s shoulder you said that you did not know how she had sustained that injury but said, “Maybe it was when she fell in the bath or down the stairs to the wheelbarrow – she didn’t know”.
Physical examination of you which took place immediately before the interview demonstrated that you had recent scratch abrasions and bruising in the region of your forehead and nose. The medical practitioner who examined you concluded that the bruise in the “inner canthus” of the eye “would indicate contact with a hard surface or … contact with an object such as a nail of a finger”. He concluded that the scratch abrasions over your face, around your nose, could be due to a number of causes including scratching with a fingernail. You told police that possibly you had sustained the scratches to your face when you knocked your sunglasses off your face. You told police that you were unable to recall having had a telephone conversation with Josephine Constable that morning. You told police that you “idolised” your mother and were devoted to her and you told police that she indeed was a devoted mother to you. You told police that you “had no‑one else but her”. You said that your mother was over 100 years old and was very frail. At the conclusion of your interview you said that you were too tired to answer any more questions. You said, “All I can say, perhaps, is it didn’t happen or that I’m totally insane and I don’t know what to say. I don’t know. I can’t – I can’t answer any more questions. I don’t know.”
Examination of the bed in which your mother was found revealed a considerable amount of blood. There was a smear of blood on the floor of the bedroom, and draped over a chair near the door of the loungeroom was a pink quilt which had blood staining on it in the form of smearing. A quilt found in the sunroom also had blood staining on it. In the second bedroom a white washing basket contained a pillow case with blood staining in the form of smears. DNA testing revealed a match between the DNA profile of your mother Iris Ross and a number of these objects.
Dr Jones, a forensic scientist, conducted the forensic analysis of such material. He said, “A combination of Luminol screening, laboratory based testing and DNA analysis strongly indicate, in my opinion, that blood, probably from Iris Ross, has been distributed broadly across the bathroom floor. The extent of this staining may be said to be due to an attempt at cleaning, however, other explanations are possible. Blood may have been left on the hand towel as part of this cleaning process although, again, there may be alternative explanations for its presence.”
Subsequently, you were charged with the murder of your mother. However, in due course the prosecution accepted a plea of guilty to the charge of manslaughter on the grounds that an unlawful and dangerous act on your part caused the death of your mother. There is no evidence of the precise circumstances under which your mother died, nor is there any evidence that you had any intention to cause the death or very serious injury of your mother.
The proceeding was listed for final directions before Justice Kaye on 10 June 2005. That day a new presentment charging you with manslaughter was filed, and it was intended by both the prosecution and those representing you, that you would be arraigned upon that presentment and would plead guilty to such a charge. His Honour, who had read the depositions but was not in possession of any medical reports, expressed some concern about arraigning you upon a final directions hearing and the matter was adjourned to proceed as a plea before me on 14 July 2005. Having read the depositions but likewise not being in possession of any medical reports at the commencement of the hearing on that date, I entertained concerns similar to those which had concerned Justice Kaye. I raised my concerns with counsel as to whether or not the issue of your fitness to plead and to be tried had been considered by both counsel. A medical report dated 29 March 2005 was then produced before me. That report by psychiatrist Dr Mark Ryan was to the effect that at the time of his examination of you in March 2005 you had been fit to be tried. Upon being assured by the prosecution and your then counsel that no issue of your fitness to be tried arose, the arraignment commenced and, no doubt to the surprise of your counsel, you unequivocally pleaded not guilty. Upon this event occurring, both the learned prosecutor and your then counsel agreed that a real and substantial question had arisen as to your fitness to be tried. Accordingly, an investigation pursuant to s.9 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 commenced.
On 16 September 2005 a jury concluded that you were fit to be tried and you were then arraigned upon the presentment and you then pleaded guilty to the count of manslaughter. I heard your plea on that day.
It is appropriate that I turn to the psychiatric evidence which is before me in this case. Regrettably, I have little evidence from contemporaneous sources of the state of your illness over the many years preceding the death of your mother. Much of that history is derived from statements made by you to psychiatrists who examined you subsequent to the death of your mother, although as is apparent some source records were available to Dr Mark Ryan, who has examined you on several occasions and who, I am pleased to see, is here today.
It will be recalled that your mother’s body was found on the morning of 2 August 2003. You were examined shortly after 6.30 pm on that day by Dr Barkley, a part‑time forensic medical officer with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. Dr Barkley was requested to examine you to determine your fitness for interview and in order to document your injuries. He obtained a history from you of long term schizophrenia. You told him that in the recent past you had attended the Dandenong Psychiatric Unit. He observed you to be co‑operative, with no sign of any talking or gesturing to yourself. You were able to answer questions appropriately. You were conscious and alert. He enquired specifically about your psychiatric illness and you denied being depressed, hearing any voices, delusions or hallucinations. He performed a mental state assessment which resulted in a score of 30 out of 30. This assessment demonstrated no evidence of cognitive impairment or psychiatric symptoms at that time. You were then interviewed by police.
Subsequently and at the request of the Office of Public Prosecutions, and in order to address the issue as to whether you had “a mental impairment defence” within the meaning of the Crimes Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried Act (1997), you were examined by Dr Mark Ryan, who, as I have said, is a consultant psychiatrist with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health. That examination took place in March of 2005. By a report dated 29 March 2005 Dr Ryan provided a history that subsequent to your being remanded into custody and in February 2004, you were transferred from the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre under s.16(3)(b) of the Mental Health Act to the Barossa Unit of the Thomas Embling Hospital for ongoing assessment of your mental state. I note that you remained there from February 2004 until 10 May 2004. Subsequently, you were readmitted into the Thomas Embling Hospital between July 2004 and December 2004. Thus it is apparent that throughout your period of time in excess of 600 days on remand, you spent a considerable time in Thomas Embling Hospital.
Dr Ryan was your treating consultant psychiatrist on both these occasions of admission to the Barossa Unit. His report of 29 March 2005 deals with your personal history. Dr Ryan had available to him documentation relating to previous admissions of you to hospital whilst you were in the care of the Southern Area Mental Health Service. It is apparent from his report that your schizophrenic illness over many years has been characterised by frequent relapses, multiple admissions, reluctant adherence to medication, and limited insight into the nature of your illness. Dr Ryan said that multiple discharge summaries, which were before him, “reveal a symptom profile characterised by persecutory delusions, disorganised communications and behaviour, a tendency to suspicion and an often perplexed incongruous affect with a reported tendency to verbal and physical aggression, especially when overtly unwell”. The records refer to aggressive behaviour having been noted in conjunction with exacerbations of your illness. A discharge summary from Dandenong Hospital in 1995 documents your belief that your mother’s ring was somehow able to control your mother, which belief led to reported attempts by you to remove the ring from your mother with a pair of pliers.
On another occasion there was a report of aggressive behaviour having been precipitated by a belief held by you that your sister was taking your children to a cult. The records reveal frequent episodes of bizarre behaviour such as waking your sons at 2.00 am to send them on their paper round, and frequently moving the furniture around for reasons that were always unclear.
It would appear that your last admission to hospital prior to your reception into custody was in March 2002, on which occasion you expressed a desire that you wanted to be put to sleep. On that occasion you reported feelings of sadness and loneliness following the loss of your role as a mother to your sons, who had reached late adolescence and moved away from you.
Dr Ryan obtained copies of your clinical file entries from the Dandenong Area Mental Health Service for the period of time between April 2002 and February 2004. In particular, those records reveal an obvious deterioration in your mental health in the early months of 2003. You were noted to be more withdrawn and agitated than usual and you were expressing “some odd ideas”, including a belief that your son had died and making suggestions that health workers would “do away” with you, and a statement that others believed you could “make people disappear into thin air”.
Statements made by Matthew Skinner and Lauren Anderson in the depositions refer to incidents and strange comments made by you in early 2003. Dr Ryan, with the benefit of hindsight, considers that those statements are “indicative of active psychotic illness” at that time.
It should be noted that on a number of occasions when, following the death of your mother, you were examined at the Thomas Embling Hospital, you appeared to doubt whether your mother was, in fact, deceased. On one occasion you said, “But maybe she’s still alive in a nursing home … I’m pretty sure she is”. Dr Ryan noted that this was a theme echoed during your admissions to the Thomas Embling Hospital, where you often implied that your mother was not, in fact, deceased. On one occasion you expressed concern that your mother may need assistance sweeping up all the leaves.
Dr Ryan examined the depositions and concluded that it was difficult to make definitive statements about specific aspects of your mental state at the time of the offence. However, he said that there was nothing to suggest that there had been any recent major deterioration in your mental state in terms of increased disordered form of thinking or odd behaviour in the period of time immediately leading up to August 2003. Your behaviour in the period after leaving the house on the morning of the death of your mother did not indicate severe disorder. There was no evidence of severe psychiatric disorder at the time of your examination by Dr Barkley on the day you were arrested by police.
Dr Ryan concluded that as at March 2005 there was nothing in the evidence available to him that would make him conclude that were you found to be responsible for the injuries sustained by your mother, you would not have known the nature and quality of your conduct. Likewise, as at that time, he considered that you were fit to be tried pursuant to the criteria established by s.6 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997. However, Dr Ryan did state:
“As outlined above it seems likely that Ms Ross was experiencing a number of poorly formed delusional ideas, particularly of a persecutory nature, on a background of a chronic degree of disorganisation at the time of her mother’s death. Her ongoing presentation has been reflective of significant cognitive limitations. Her longstanding behaviour patterns, particularly her propensity to respond to both frustration and persecutory beliefs with seemingly impulsive aggression certainly suggest a tendency to act at times in a manner reflective of an inability to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure.”
At my request, Dr Ryan prepared a further report dated 24 August 2005 whereby he confirmed his earlier opinion that at that time you were fit to be tried. You continued to deny to Dr Ryan any involvement in the injuries sustained by your mother. You again made bizarre claims that your mother was “savagely battered for years” by a range of people, including your sister, brother‑in‑law, niece, son’s girlfriend, as well as hairdressers and taxi drivers. Notwithstanding that you denied to Dr Ryan any knowledge of how your mother may have sustained the injuries that led to her death, nevertheless you stated your intention to plead guilty to a charge of manslaughter in due course.
Dr O’Sullivan, who is likewise a consultant psychiatrist with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, saw you on 19 July 2005 at the request of your solicitors. Likewise, he obtained from you a history of long term psychiatric disorder. You informed him that you had previously been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia but that you disagreed with that diagnosis. When Dr O’Sullivan examined you on 10 July 2005 he found you to be co‑operative at interview. He found there to be a mild degree of “formal thought disorder” but found no delusional beliefs. His opinion was that you clearly “fulfil the diagnostic criteria for paranoid schizophrenia”. He said further:
“Ms Ross has a chronic severe psychiatric disorder. Given her response to treatment so far, she will almost certainly continue to exhibit ongoing symptoms for the duration of her life. She warrants further trials of medication, particularly Clozapine, in the hope that these might improve symptom control. I would regard her prognosis as essentially poor. She is unlikely to return to meaningful employment and her social situation will probably remain severely isolated. It is more likely than not that her symptoms will continue to manifest and cause her ongoing distress.”
Dr O’Sullivan examined you again on 11 September 2005. He was satisfied that you had “an awareness of court proceedings”. You told him that your recollection of the index offence was “patchy”. In relation to the mental state examination conducted by Dr O’Sullivan on 11 September 2005, he stated:
“She was initially pleasant in demeanour, but becoming more pensive as the interview proceeded, and during periods in which we discussed more distressing matters, frequently closed her eyes and avoided eye contact. There were no movement abnormalities evident. Her speech was slightly monotonous, normal in rate and volume without significant disturbance. There was mild thought disorder evident in vague and slightly idiosyncratic answers. She denied, and there was no evidence of, delusional beliefs currently. There were no perceptual abnormalities evident. Her insight was fair: she acknowledged benefit from medication.”
Dr O’Sullivan gave consideration to your situation in light of the criteria of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997. He expressed the opinion that you were fit to be tried, and that at that time you were able to instruct counsel.
The investigation of your fitness to plead came on before a jury on 16 September 2005 and both Dr O’Sullivan and Dr Ryan gave evidence before the jury upon the investigation conducted to determine whether or not you were fit to be tried.
On any view, the crime of manslaughter is a serious crime. As stated above, the jury determined that you were fit to be tried and I heard your plea immediately after the jury so determined. In the circumstances of this case an elderly woman who cared deeply for you and for your two sons has lost her life at your hands. The circumstances of how she came to lose her life are not clear and you have never provided any explanation as to what occurred. There is no psychiatric evidence before me to suggest that your failure to provide any explanation is related to your longstanding psychiatric illness. There is no evidence that your apparent lack of memory as to what occurred on the night of your mother’s death has any medical or psychiatric basis. Your mother was herself much loved by others. Your sister has filed a statement relating to the effect upon her of your crime. In that statement she expresses her suffering at the loss of her mother in such terrible circumstances. The admissible parts of the statement filed on her behalf reveal the loss which she suffers. Your son Leo has not filed a victim impact statement, but I am satisfied by the evidence before me that he had a close and loving relationship with his grandmother. He, too, is a victim of your crime. For Leo, in particular, his grandmother provided the love and care which your illness prevented you from providing to him and to his brother throughout their childhood.
However, notwithstanding the seriousness of the crime which has been committed by you there are a number of significant mitigating matters. First amongst these matters is, of course, the fact that you have pleaded guilty. Your plea has saved the community and your family, and particularly your son Leo, the trauma and unhappiness of giving evidence in a trial against you. However, that said, I am far from satisfied that you suffer any real and insightful remorse. There is no psychiatric evidence dealing directly with this issue but I conclude that your apparent lack of remorse is most likely related to your psychiatric illness. I will return to that issue later.
You have no prior convictions and you come before the Court as a person of previous good character. Regrettably, you, too, are a victim of your crime, having killed the person in your life who cared for you as much as had anyone. You have had a sad life, punctuated by episodes of extreme psychiatric distress throughout the long time of your debilitating adulthood condition of schizophrenia.
On a plea of guilty a sentencing judge is precluded from passing sentence on any basis inconsistent with the conclusion that the offender is legally responsible for the crime to which he or she has pleaded guilty. Nevertheless, on any view, your psychiatric illness is a major matter to be considered in the terms of an appropriate sentence. Your counsel does not submit that it is appropriate for a hospital order to be made under s.93(1)(d) of the Sentencing Act 1991, nor is it contended that a hospital security order should be made under s.93(1)(e) of that Act. The medical material before me does not suggest that you should be admitted to a mental health facility as an involuntary patient at the present time, nor do I have the required advice from the authorised psychiatrist of any approved mental health service under s.93(1)(e) so as to enable me to give consideration to a hospital order.
The evidence before me is that during your period of incarceration at the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre and with the exception of your admissions to the Thomas Embling Hospital you have been reasonably stable. Accordingly, it appears to be clear that you will be detained in a prison for such time as you are sentenced, with the possibility of intermittent admission to the Thomas Embling Hospital if symptoms of psychosis re‑appear.
Having considered all of the circumstances of the offence and its seriousness, there is no alternative but to impose a term of imprisonment upon you. However, the question of an appropriate term is much related to your mental illness. As the Court of Appeal stated in R v Tsiaras:[2]
“Serious psychiatric illness not amounting to insanity is relevant to sentencing in at least five ways. First, it may reduce the moral culpability of the offence, as distinct from the prisoner’s legal responsibilities. Where that is so, it affects the punishment that is just in all the circumstances and denunciation of the type of conduct in which the offender engaged is less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective. Second, the prisoner’s illness may have a bearing on the kind of sentence that is imposed and the conditions in which it should be served. Third, a prisoner suffering from serious psychiatric illness is not an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence, whether or not the illness played a part in the commission of the offence. The illness may not have supervened since that time. Fourth, specific deterrence may be more difficult to achieve and is often not worth pursuing as such. Finally, psychiatric illness may mean that a heavy sentence will weigh more heavily on the prisoner than it would on a person in normal health.”
[2][1996] 1 VR 398 at 400.
It appears to me in the particular circumstances of this case that each of the five factors identified by the Court of Appeal has application. In such circumstances, the question arises as to whether the interests of society permit, or your interests require, that the sentence to be passed be reduced from what would otherwise be appropriate. The answer to that question is clearly in the affirmative.
However, as stated above, I have real concern as to your insight into what has occurred and your insight into the gravity of your offence. I have no confidence that you suffer from any remorse, although, as I have said, I do conclude that this is related to your blunted cognitive capacity. Your behaviour throughout the hearing of your plea was bizarre. For much of the time you looked around the court as if entirely disinterested in the proceedings. In the course of submissions made by the learned prosecutor you made a clearly audible statement from the dock.[3] I mention this, not because I take any view adverse to you by reason of that statement. I do not do so. Rather, to my mind, your statement does reflect both the nature of your illness and, regrettably, your clear lack of understanding of the gravity of what has occurred. Clearly, any sentence to be imposed upon you must be designed to give you as much support as possible and at the same time provide some protection for you and the community. It must enable such rehabilitative steps to be taken as may be capable of being achieved taking into account the serious nature of your illness.
[3]See transcript p.46 at lines 15-24.
As I have said, in the end result, the circumstances of this crime are such that no alternative other than imprisonment is appropriate. However, in my view, taking into account the factors which by reason of R v Tsiaras must be considered in terms of sentencing, and to which I have referred above, the sentence which must be imposed upon you must be moderated sensibly and structured to enable you to have maximum support in the community.
I sentence you to five years and six months’ imprisonment. I conclude, however, that in all the circumstances of this case a longer than usual period of parole is appropriate. I direct that you not be eligible for parole until you have served a period of two years and six months’ imprisonment. That sentence will enable the Adult Parole Board to ensure, should it consider it appropriate to release you upon parole, that you have had thorough psychiatric assessment prior to release. It will enable an appropriate consideration of whether you are eligible for such programs as the multiple and complex needs initiative of the Department of Human Services. It will enable the establishment of a process of intensive supervision and the co‑ordination of services in accordance with an appropriate plan for your case. It will provide an ample period of parole so as to enable appropriate consideration to be given to residential issues and to your supervision in conjunction with Forensicare and the community health services during your parole period.
I declare that you have already served 624 days pre-sentence detention and I direct that the same be entered in the records of the Court.
Remove the prisoner.
---
0
0
0