Regina v Bradley Lane

[2007] NSWDC 337

CITATION:	Regina v Bradley Lane [2007] NSWDC 337
JUDGMENT DATE:	1 June 2007
JURISDICTION:	District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Cogswell SC DCJ at 1
DECISION:	Overall total term of 3 years and 6 months with an overall non-parole period of 1 year, 8 months and 28 days. ; To be released immediately to supervised parole.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - Sentence - Pleas of guilty - Armed with intent to commit an indictable offence (steal) - Aggravated possession of an unregistered firearm in a public place - Possessing loaded firearm in a public place - Form 1 offences taken into account - Planned and organised crime - Accomplice was initiator of plan - Accomplice informed police of plan - Listening device - Offender easily influenced and compliant - Chronic depression, insomnia and anxiety - Alcohol and cannibus use - Excellent behaviour in custody - Mentor to participants in Young Offender's programme - Protective custody - Accepts responsibility for his offending behaviour - Remorse and regret - General and specific deterrence - Discounted sentence for early guilty pleas and genuine remorse - Special circumstances - No previous convictions - First time in custody - Youth - Very good prospects of rehabilitation
LEGISLATION CITED:	ss 93I(2), 93G(1), 114(1) Crimes Act 1900 ss 32 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
PARTIES:	Regina Bradley Lane
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/21/3058
COUNSEL:	Mr Chicken for the offender
SOLICITORS:	Ms Morkaya for the NSW DPP

1. Bradley Lane has been charged with three offences on an indictment. The first is being armed with intent to steal contrary to s 114(1A) of the Crimes Act1900. That carries a maximum of seven years imprisonment. The second is possessing an unregistered firearm in a public place in circumstances of aggravation, the circumstances of aggravation being that the unregistered firearm was a pistol. That is an offence contrary to s 93I(2) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum of fourteen years. The third is possessing a loaded firearm in a public place, which is an offence contrary to s 93G(1)(a)(i), which carries a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment.

2. Mr Lane pleaded guilty to all of these charges and was committed for sentence from Liverpool Local Court on 22 March 2006. He came before me at Campbelltown earlier this year. He was arrested on 5 September 2005 and has been in custody since then related only to these matters. There are three matters on a Form 1 pursuant s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which is a certificate signed by Mr Lane and by me and I propose to take those offences into account when sentencing him in respect of count 1, the armed with intent to steal.

3. If I did not mention it Mr Lane pleaded guilty.

4. I turn now to a brief consideration of the facts of this case. I say brief because essentially the facts are relatively straight forward. Mr Lane was involved in a plan to steal money from a security van which transports money from businesses to banks. The van was owned by a security company. The plan was arranged between him and an employee of the security company. The employee’s name was Mr Seaton. The plan was discussed and developed over August and September 2005. It was preceded by a number of discussions. Mr Lane recruited a co-offender to assist him. Basically the plan was, as arranged between Mr Seaton and Mr Lane, that at a prearranged time and day there would be a collision with the van in which Mr Seaton was an occupant. By prearrangement between him and Mr Lane the car which would collide with the van was to be occupied by Mr Lane and his accomplice and then they would hold up the van with weapons and then take the van a few streets away and take the money and divide it up later on.

5. There was one opportunity when the plan was to be put into effect but for various reasons it had to be abandoned because of a change of route undertaken by the van. Mr Seaton at some stage disclosed the plan to his employer and to the police and so, although still participating with Mr Lane, in fact he was doing so on behalf of the authorities, so to speak. At one stage he was equipped with a listening device authorised in accordance with legislation and there was a recorded conversation between him and Mr Lane and his accomplice.

6. It was arranged that the plan would be implemented on 5 September 2005 but the police intervened and Mr Lane and his accomplice were arrested on that day and Mr Lane, as I said, has been in custody since that date. When they were arrested the car in which they were occupants was searched. Both Mr Lane and his co-offender were wearing gloves. In the car was found a bum bag containing a .40 calibre Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol with an obliterated serial number, the pistol was unregistered. The magazine was loaded with ammunition. Also in the bum bag was a 9 millimetre Springfield semi-automatic pistol which was also loaded with live ammunition. This pistol was registered in Queensland but had been reported stolen in 1994. There was also found a black full-faced balaclava, indeed there were two balaclavas. The car had been stolen.

7. Mr Lane took part in an interview which was recorded. He denied knowledge of the firearms at that stage and then indicated that he did not wish to answer any more questions.

8. That is a basic outline of the facts and demonstrates the basis for the charges, namely the plan to hold up the van and steal the money and the possession of the two weapons, which are the subjects of counts 2 and 3. There was a dispute between the parties on two issues which need to be resolved by me. One is who was the initiator of the plan, Mr Seaton or Mr Lane, and the second issue was who provided the weapon. Mr Seaton was called as a witness and cross-examined by defence counsel and Mr Lane was called as a witness and cross-examined by Crown counsel.

9. It was acknowledged by Ms Morkaya who appeared for the Crown that the Crown bore the onus of establishing to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Lane was the initiator of the plan and that he was the source of the weapons. That acknowledgment was of course correct because if I find against Mr Lane in respect of either of those matters then they constitute aggravating circumstances of the offences. Hence I approach the resolution of this question from that important perspective. It will not be necessary for me to review the evidence but only to review the submissions for reasons which will appear later on.

10. Mr Chicken, defence counsel for Mr Lane, invited me to not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the two issues which the Crown bore the onus of proving. His first point was that, when I look at two psychiatric reports which were exhibits 1 and 2 (they were either psychological or psychiatric reports) it is apparent that Mr Lane was a vulnerable person and likely to be influenced by other people. As Mr Chicken said it, his client was a follower not a leader. So Mr Chicken submitted that the relationship between Mr Seaton and Mr Lane needed to be seen in that context. I should add that Mr Lane is twenty-eight, having been born on 2 February 1979 and Mr Seaton is a man is a man in his sixties. I should also add at this point that there was already a relationship between Mr Seaton and Mr Lane in that it is clear that Mr Lane regarded Mr Seaton as a person whom he respected and from whom he took advice and who was something of a mentor for Mr Lane.

11. Hence Mr Chicken also drew my attention to the picture painted by certain referees which demonstrated that Mr Lane is a young man with a need to help people. He submitted that the motivation of Mr Lane was to help Mr Seaton. Mr Seaton was in some financial difficulty and I make that finding. There is some evidence in the transcript of the listening device, which was exhibit E, that Mr Seaton needed the money. And in addition there was evidence that his mobile phone was in his wife’s name and that his car had been surrendered. In those circumstances Mr Chicken argues that not only was Mr Lane in a relationship with Mr Seaton which was something like a nephew and an uncle but the psychological and psychiatric evidence demonstrated a propensity for Mr Lane to lean on someone such as Mr Seaton and to be influenced significantly by someone like him. And, in addition, Mr Seaton was a person who was in some need and Mr Lane had a predisposition, commendable one might think, to assist people in need. Hence Mr Chicken’s first argument was that circumstances combined to make it much more likely that Mr Seaton was the initiator of the plan than Mr Lane.

12. Another point made by Mr Chicken was that Mr Seaton denied that he had ever held himself out to Mr Lane as a hit man, but Mr Chicken pointed out that there is some evidence that he has held himself out on another occasion in those terms, but that Mr Lane was unlikely to have known about that previous occasion.

13. Another argument that Mr Chicken put forward is that Mr Seaton had no explanation for going along with the plan in first place. His best explanation was “I wanted to see if they were fair dinkum.” And he had wished he had stopped them back then.

14. Another argument which highlighted, Mr Chicken said, the inherent unlikelihood of Mr Seaton’s account was his insistence that he was entering the plan for remuneration of some $30,000. He knew the potential for the amount of money to be contained in the van. There is some conflict in evidence here. Mr Seaton thought that it was possible that the van might contain $500,000 or up to a million dollars. But one of the directors of the security company whose statement was in evidence said in his statement that the vans never carry more than $150,000. Nevertheless in either event Mr Chicken’s point is that it would be unlikely that Mr Seaton would enter into such a plan for $30,000 if that represented a small fraction of the potential sums of money contained in the van.

15. In support of that argument he points to a passage on p 6 of exhibit E which is the transcript of the listening device, where Mr Lane says that he will take his percentage and drop the rest around. That passage, Mr Chicken says, points to the likelihood of Mr Lane’s account being true rather than Mr Seaton’s. It suggests that what Mr Lane expected from the theft was a percentage of the haul rather than the balance, which would be delivered to Mr Seaton.

16. Concerning the question of the access to firearms there is some evidence that both Mr Lane and Mr Seaton had access to firearms. In Mr Seaton’s case there is evidence that in the year 2000 he described himself in a document signed by him on 18 April 2000 as a firearms dealer and instructor. There is some evidence also that Mr Lane had access to the firearms. There is evidence that both Mr Lane and Mr Seaton were members of a gun club and indeed that is where they had met.

17. For contending for a finding to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Lane was the initiator of the plan and the supplier of the weapon, Ms Morkaya said that I should not believe Mr Lane. Mr Lane asserted that he was indifferent to money and that, she said, is an assertion which is incapable of belief. She pointed to what she described as failed businesses undertaken by Mr Lane in the past. She pointed to the assertion by Mr Lane that his co-offenders did not know about the weapons or, at least, did not have access to the weapons. And that assertion she said was inconsistent with evidence in exhibit H, which was a report of a forensic examination of the weapons which demonstrated that one of the co-offender’s DNA was present on at least one of the weapons. Hence, she argues, Mr Lane is lying about the involvement of his co-offenders and I ought not to accept him on other issues.

18. It is clear, she said, that he was not a passive participant in the plan, citing, for example, the fact that Mr Lane brought in the co-offenders.

19. In resolving this issue the factor which I need to bear in mind is the onus on the Crown and the standard which it must achieve in discharging that onus. The Crown needs to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt that both propositions should be accepted. I am not so satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

20. The reasons that I am not so satisfied are that I find more persuasive Mr Chicken’s arguments which point to some inherent unlikelihood of the scenario which the Crown would ask me to accept. I take into account for example the reference in the listening device tape to Mr Lane taking merely a percentage and I take into account the unlikelihood of Mr Seaton, having been employed by this particular security company for some twenty years, being satisfied with an amount of $30,000 but at the same time knowing that such a sum represented a fraction of the potential amount of money that was contained in the van.

21. I am also persuaded by the independent evidence of the psychologist and psychiatrist about Mr Lane’s predisposition to being influenced by people such as Mr Seaton. I am persuaded by that particularly in the context acknowledged by both Mr Seaton and Mr Lane that there was a relationship between the two of them which was not unlike that of an uncle and a nephew. In addition, finding that Mr Lane was in some financial need, I am persuaded by the evidence that Mr Lane is a person who is predisposed to help those in need and I infer, given the relationship between him and Mr Seaton, that that desire to help Mr Seaton would have been particularly strong.

22. As to the firearm question, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the source of the firearms was Mr Lane, particularly given the evidence that Mr Seaton had described himself as firearms dealer. The evidence is fairly evenly balanced on that question. And in any event given the finding that I have made regarding the initiator of the plan, in other words I accept Mr Lane’s account, I find more likely that Mr Seaton would be the source of the weapons. It was in his interests that the weapons should be involved because the scenario which they had created needed to be given some appearance of a real robbery by the presence of loaded weapons.

23. I should add in this regard that the evidence was that the co-occupant of van with Mr Seaton was an accessory to the plan in the sense that he knew about it, so that there would be no need, if the plan had been executed, for there to be any actual robbery: hence the charge of stealing rather than robbery.

24. In those circumstances I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the two aggravating factors advanced by the Crown that Mr Lane was the initiator of the plan and that he was the source of the weapons.

25. Nevertheless Mr Lane, I find, participated in a plan to perform an armed stealing using loaded weapons. Although he was not the initiator and had not been the source of the weapons, he was actively involved at all times, an example being the provision of his accomplice to assist him in the exercise.

26. I turn now to a brief consideration of the exhibits and other material before me. There was tendered a pre-sentence report prepared by the Probation and Parole Service. It recorded the fact that Mr Lane’s mother was overwhelmed by the offence and his subsequent incarceration. She reported that Mr Lane had always been protective and supportive towards her and the family, particularly when Mr Lane’s father had been ill. It appears that Mr Lane has been constantly employed and the report also noted chronic bouts of depression and anxiety. It noted that he had commenced the use of cannabis at the age of twenty, as a result, probably, of emotional trauma he had experienced due to his father’s behaviour towards him. The use of cannabis ceased evidently when Mr Lane suffered an intense bout of panic, anxiety and depression resulting him being admitted to Cumberland Hospital as an out patient on 15 February 2005.

27. The report expressed the view that Mr Lane has clearly indicated some motivation and determination to abide by all post release supervision plans in order to address his drug dependency and resultant offending behaviour. Such motivation has been consistent with his conduct in custody since 2005. The supervision of Mr Lane should include strategies to address drug and alcohol dependency and depression, anxiety and insomnia, which should be dealt with by intensive counselling as well as the question of the people with whom Mr Lane associates.

28. There was admitted into evidence a report from a psychologist dated 16 May

2006. The psychologist was Mr Peter Ashkar who examined and assessed Mr Lane last year. He said that Mr Lane’s offending behaviour was best understood within the context of his personality functioning. His profile suggests that he is easily influenced and highly compliant and at an increased risk of developing depressive-symptomatology during times of stress, making him extremely vulnerable to the influence of unscrupulous peers. I add in this regard that that opinion was one of the factors to which I referred indirectly in coming to the conclusion which I did on the factual dispute.

29. His vocational skills suggest a good prognosis according to Mr Ashkar and an important aspect of his rehabilitation will require that he develop skills to manage anxiety and depression. He noted that his substance abuse disorders are in remission but the risk of relapse will increase when he is released from a controlled environment. Supervision, he suggested, is recommended upon his release into the community to ensure his adaptive social functioning.

30. In addition there was admitted into evidence a report from a forensic psychiatrist, Dr Watson-Munro. Dr Watson-Munro examined Mr Lane on 16 August 2006 and expressed the opinion that he presented as a cooperative, though highly anxious and somewhat depressed man. Notwithstanding the charges he faced the impression given to Dr Watson-Munro was that Mr Lane is an individual with potential in life and in this context he suggested that his offending behaviour had arisen in the setting of unresolved emotional problems rather than being a function of innate propensity towards crime. He noted that his self-esteem had been adversely affected by various issues, which rendered him quite vulnerable to solicitations of significant others in his life. Once again that is an opinion which I have taken into account in reaching the conclusion which I did regarding the factual dispute.

31. Dr Watson-Munro noted that Mr Lane on examination expressed considerable regret for his behaviour, and Dr Watson-Munro believed that to be genuine. It is clear, the doctor said, that prison has had a salutary impact upon Mr Lane and no doubt this is reinforcing his desire to remain free from future involvement with the police. Evidently Mr Lane at that stage had recommenced his anti-depressant medication but nevertheless remains vulnerable at a psychological level and requires ongoing treatment to address these issues. Dr Watson-Munro believed that with ongoing support, supervision and therapy Mr Lane’s prognosis from a clinical perspective was very positive.

32. There was also admitted into evidence a report from Judith Hornery, Senior Assistant Superintendent at the Parklea Correctional Centre. She said that Mr Lane had never betrayed the trust bestowed upon him in the position of as a wing hygiene sweeper, nor had Mr Lane given her any reason to be concerned about his behaviour. He has a thorough understanding of his responsibilities, she reported, as well as his duties, and showed care with the work which he undertook. She said that he had just completed a Young Offender’s Programme - I add that the report was dated 29 September 2006 - and noted that Mr Lane was a mentor for the young offenders in this programme. She expressed the opinion that Mr Lane no longer presents a threat to society.

33. In addition, there was a report from Brian Mumberson dated 3 August 2006. He was from the Alcohol and Other Drug Service at Parklea Correctional Centre. He expressed the opinion that, if any effective significant behavioural change is to happen, Mr Lane needs to take total personal responsibility for his behaviour, which is generally not a regular occurrence with clients that he deals with. However, he said in the case of Mr Lane he believed that he had taken positive, and at times painful, strides towards understanding the personal responsibility he must own in relation to his offences and their toll on the community, and also what is required of him to bring about permanent positive change to his offending behaviour.

34. There was a reference from Mr Merritt William Watson, who gave an account of how Mr Lane had helped him when he was, in 2004, living on the streets of Sydney, along with his sixteen-year-old son. Mr Watson said how he was amazed at the unusually generous nature of this young man, who made significant efforts to helping this young family out. He even offered him a job in his cleaning business. He noted how he was very regretful and remorseful about what had happened. He concluded by saying that he would never be able to repay Bradley Lane for all he had done.

35. There were other references pointing to Mr Lane’s good character and his contribution to the community in which he lives.

36. There was a report from a Mr or Ms Carey, manager of Offender Services and Programmes in the Young Adult Offender Programmes. The report was dated 2 August 2006, and noted Bradley Lane had exhibited high team work and self-motivation to change, as well as a deep desire to assist and to develop young adult offenders to change to non-criminal thoughts. He exhibited leadership and assisted fellow participants to develop.

37. I have also noted other material, including certificates attained by Mr Lane during the period of his custody.

38. Objectively speaking, these offences were very serious. By definition, at least in one instance, one of the offences involved a loaded weapon. In the other instance, although the aggravation was that it was a pistol, it was loaded. In respect of the intended stealing, the offence was to be committed in company and, so far as the weapons were concerned, there was a lack of regard for public safety, although I note in respect of one of the offences that possession of the item in public is part of the definition of the offence, and I do not take that aspect into account regarding that particular offence. The offences were part of a planned and organised activity, and Mr Lane knew that the weapons were loaded.

39. I need to take into account general deterrence, because of - and I accept the Crown’s submission in this regard - the potential risk to the public and the fundamental danger associated with the conduct of such offences. Specific deterrence is also an important factor in this case because of the need for Mr Lane to be aware that his medical or emotional condition cannot result in the kind of behaviour which he engaged in this time by way of any future relapse.

40. Other factors which I must take into account are as follows. Mr Lane has been in protective custody up until now. He pleaded guilty to the three offences and the Crown concedes that the plea was entered at the earliest available opportunity. So Mr Lane is entitled to the full utilitarian value of his plea of guilty. I propose to allow him on the utilitarian basis (that is what he has saved the community in pleading guilty and facing the charges which he acknowledges he is responsible for committing, saving the community the resources which will not have to be expended on a trial) a 25 per cent discount to the sentence which I would otherwise impose.

41. In addition, I make an allowance for contrition and remorse. In my opinion, this is genuine. It appears to have been expressed to a number of different people, not just to me in evidence. The author of the Probation and Parole Report as well as Dr Watson-Munro both note the expression of remorse, and the psychiatrist noted his opinion that he thought that the remorse was genuine. Hence, I propose to allow a further discount to acknowledge that genuine expression of remorse.

42. Mr Lane faces the court without any record of previous convictions. There was, as Mr Chicken pointed out, no evidence of any substantial emotional harm or loss, and the prospects of rehabilitation are, as I have found, good. I have already made findings about the plea of guilty.

43. Mr Chicken realistically acknowledges that a full-time custodial sentence is the only sentence in all the circumstances which is appropriate. (I also take into account, so far as remorse is concerned, the evidence from a number of sources within the Corrective Services Department of Mr Lane’s leadership and mentoring role with other young offenders. That, to my mind, is ample evidence of genuine remorse.)

44. Mr Chicken points to the need for extended supervision and assistance after his release, and I accept that submission, which is supported by the reports to which I have already referred.

45. I have taken into account his emotional vulnerability at the time of the offences, particularly given his relationship to Mr Seaton, and I find that his prospects of rehabilitation are excellent.

46. I will say this: I have resolved the dispute between the parties without substantial reference to any findings so far as demeanour is concerned, but I must say that I was very impressed by the demeanour of Mr Lane in the witness box. He came across to me as a genuine and forthright young man, who occasionally made concessions against his interest. He seemed to have a clear grasp of what had and had not happened, and he impressed me as someone who was frank and straightforward, and had evidently matured somewhat from what his condition must have been at the time of these offences, and I infer that he has benefited already from the programmes which he has undertaken and the treatment which he has undertaken since he has been in custody.

47. Mr Chicken drew my attention to statistics concerning the offence of armed with intent to steal, and pointed out that the vast bulk of cases were for head sentences of three years or less. I should add that Mr Chicken highlighted the fact that some of the supportive reports in respect of his client came from within the Corrective Services Department and were themselves very positive, and I accept that submission.

48. Mr Chicken submitted that in any custodial sentence which I impose there was a basis for altering the ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of the term because of a finding of special circumstances. He pointed to his client’s youth, his very good prospects of rehabilitation, the fact that he had no criminal history, and the fact that he needed to deal with a number of issues upon his release in order to successfully reintegrate into society. This is his first time in custody.

49. There is a question whether I make the sentences which I am going to impose concurrent or not. I propose to make them concurrent because of the close relationship amongst the three offences. The weapons, which were the subject of two charges, were the same weapons which were to be used in the intended armed stealing. I acknowledge the force of Ms Morkaya’s submission that the weapons charges do relate to particular kinds of weapons, whereas the armed stealing charge relates to simply being armed, but, in the circumstances of this planned event which was not executed, I propose to impose sentences which are concurrent.

50. I will ask you to check my maths later on. If you would stand up, Mr Lane. Mr Lane, in respect of the third count in the indictment of possessing a loaded firearm in a public place, I sentence you to two years imprisonment to date from 5 September 2005 to 4 September 2007. I set a non-parole period of one year eight months and twenty-seven days, to commence on 5 September 2005 and to expire on 1 June 2007 - that is today.

51. In respect of the offence of possessing an unregistered firearm in circumstances of aggravation, the second count in the indictment, I sentence you to imprisonment for two and a half years to date from 5 September 2005 to 4 March 2008, and I specify a non-parole period of one year eight months and twenty-seven days to date from 5 September 2005 to 1 June 2007.

52. In respect of the offence of being armed with intent to commit the indictable offence of stealing, I sentence you to a period of three and a half years imprisonment from 5 September 2005 to 4 March 2009, and I specify a non-parole period of one year eight months and twenty-seven days to date from 5 September 2005 to 1 June 2007.

53. I have taken into account, in sentencing you for that last offence of being armed with intent to steal, the three matters on the Form One, and the matters on the s 166 certificate I dismiss.

Have a seat, Mr Lane.

Mr Warda and Ms Millward, we had better make sure my sums are right, and I am prepared to adjust things if I need to. Indeed, I may have to rephrase the sentencing to comply with s 44, which means I set the non-parole period first, but we will come to that. I just want you to check the sums. There is no rush. The intent is that Mr Lane should be released today. Any obvious mistakes?

MILLWARD: I think that’s correct, your Honour. I count one year eight months and 28 days, bringing us to today the first of June 2007.

HIS HONOUR: So what happens?

MILLWARD: One year, eight months, and 28 days from 5 September 2005 to 1 June 2007, being today.

HIS HONOUR: So it should be 28 days?

MILLWARD: Twenty-eight days.

HIS HONOUR: And you agree, good. I need to work out the balance, don't I? Good, I’m going to make that 28 days in a moment, but I also need to work out the balance of the term in each case. Sorry, Mr Lane, it is important to get things right. Obviously, they affect the amount of time that you will be under supervision for.

OFFENDER: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: So is the balance of the term, say, for the two year one - you've got something there? And three days, good. Nine months and one day, okay.

MILLWARD: If it assists your Honour, the balance that I calculate with respect to count 3 would be three months and three days.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, good.

MILLWARD: In respect of count 2, nine months and three days; and in respect of count 1, one year nine months and three days.

HIS HONOUR: And three days, yes. I think we will go with that. Good, I agree with that. And am I right - that’s because I'm sentencing him to more than three years that I don't direct his release; it’s a matter for him being eligible for release to parole? He’s to be released today--

MILLWARD: You might want to note that the earliest date that he is eligible for release as at today, as at the first of - taking into account the non-parole periods that you've set, that he is eligible for release as at 1 June 2007.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, so what does that mean? Does he have to be assessed by the Parole Board for release? How does it work?

MILLWARD: I don't think it’s a matter for the court, your Honour. I think it might be a matter for Corrective Services.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, it may be that you don't walk out today, Mr Lane. I would have liked that, but you may have to be assessed for release.

OFFENDER: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: But I'm recommending that you be released straightaway. It might take a few days, but that’s the intent. Thank you both. Stay seated, Mr Lane, I'm just going to revise the expression which I used in the sentence.

54. In respect of count 3, I set a non-parole period of one year eight months and twenty-eight days, to commence on 5 September 2005 and to expire today, and the balance of the term is three months and three days.

55. In respect of count 2, I set a non-parole period of one year eight months and twenty-eight days to commence on 5 September 2005 and to expire today, and I fix the balance of the term as nine months and three days.

56. In respect of count 1, I fix a non-parole period of one year eight months and twenty-eight days to commence on 5 September 2005 and to expire today, and I fix a balance of the term of one year nine months and three days.

57. The first day on which Mr Lane is eligible for release on parole is today. I recommend to the relevant authorities that he be assessed for release as soon as possible, given that I have fixed today as the expiry of his non-parole period.

Do you understand, Mr Lane, that is what I’ve said?

OFFENDER: I do, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, good. Mr Warda and Ms Millward, have I left anything out?

WARDA: No, I think you've covered everything.

MILLWARD: No, there’s nothing further, your Honour. If I could ask you to order the transcript of today’s proceedings?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, the transcript of the remarks on sentence?

WARDA: Yes, that's correct.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, both of you?

WARDA: Yes, please.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, and I direct that a transcript of these remarks on sentence be taken out. Anything else?

MILLWARD: No, I think that’s all, your Honour.

WARDA: That's all, your Honour, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Lane, I agreed with Mr Chicken’s submissions. I have agreed you have done enough time. You have spent 21 months in prison, and I am hoping that you will be released over the weekend or early next week. You have obviously made significant efforts to address your problems whilst you've been in custody. I have been impressed by the reports that I’ve read about you, and, as I said, I was impressed by you in the witness box. You obviously had difficult times in the past. You have confronted, by the sounds of it, those issues, and can I encourage you to continue to confront and deal with the issues? We all have problems in life. Everybody does. Yours, by the sounds of it, were more significant than others, so you had a lot to do deal with, but I have been impressed by the way you have dealt with them and I encourage you to stay on that course and learn from what has happened, and I get the impression you clearly have. By the sounds of it, you have been doing very good things in prison with the young offenders. You have got a lot going for you, so please stick to the course that you are on, and good luck.

OFFENDER: Yes, your Honour, thank you.

oOo