Seualuga v The King
[2024] VSCA 7
•20 February 2024
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA COURT OF APPEAL |
| S EAPCR 2022 0195 |
| VINCENT SEUALUGA | Applicant |
| v | |
| THE KING | Respondent |
---
| JUDGES: | Walker and Macaulay JJA |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 31 January 2024 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 20 February 2024 |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VSCA 7 |
| JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: | [2023] VCC 1853 (Judge Carmody) |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Charges relating to two distinct episodes of offending – Serious offending – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Youthful offender – Where offender assessed as unsuitable for Youth Justice Centre order – Where offender not previously incarcerated – Plea of guilty during the COVID-19 pandemic – Application for leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed.
R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235, Worboyesv The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 followed. Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43 discussed.
---
| Counsel | |||
| Applicant: | Mr J O’Connor | ||
| Respondent: | Ms J Warren | ||
Solicitors | |||
| Applicant: | Emma Turnbull Lawyers | ||
| Respondent: | Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions | ||
w
WALKER JA
MACAULAY JA:
The applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to 11 serious offences, namely: burglary, criminal damage (three counts), attempted aggravated burglary (two counts), aggravated burglary, theft (two counts) and armed robbery (two counts). The offences were committed over a period of three days, when the applicant was 20 years of age. He was sentenced in the County Court on 26 October 2022 to a total effective sentence of 4 years and 7 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years.
The details of the applicant’s sentence were as follows:
Charge on Indictment
Offence
Max Penalty
Sentence
Cumulation
1 Burglary[1] 10 years 1 years 2 months 2 Criminal damage[2] 10 years 9 months 1 month 3 Attempted aggravated burglary[3] 20 years 3 years Base 4 Criminal damage[4] 10 years 9 months Nil 5 Aggravated burglary[5] 25 years 2 years 3 months 6 Theft[6] 10 years 1 year 1 months 7 Armed robbery[7] 25 years 2 years 3 months 8 Theft[8] 5 years 1 year 1 month 9 Attempted aggravated burglary[9] 20 years 2 years 3 months 10 Criminal damage[10] 10 years 9 months 2 months 11 Armed robbery[11] 25 years 2 years 3 months Related Summary Offences
3 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 4 Contravene a conduct condition of bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 7 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 11 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 16 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 20 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 23 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil Total Effective Sentence: 4 years 7 months’ imprisonment Non-Parole Period: 3 years Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 195 days Section 6AAA Statement: Total Effective Sentence 6 years 9 months
Non-parole Period 4 years 6 months
Other Relevant Orders:
1. Cancellation of license and disqualification for a period of 12 months
2. Disposal of property
[1]Contrary to the Crimes Act 1958, s 76(1).
[2]Contrary to the Crimes Act, s 197(1).
[3]Contrary to the Crimes Act, ss 77(1), 321M, 321P.
[4]Contrary to the Crimes Act, s 197(1).
[5]Contrary to the Crimes Act, s 77(1).
[6]Contrary to the Crimes Act, s 74(1).
[7]Contrary to the Crimes Act, s 75A(1).
[8]Contrary to the Crimes Act, s 74(1).
[9]Contrary to the Crimes Act, ss 77(1), 321P.
[10]Contrary to the Crimes Act, s 197(1).
[11]Contrary to the Crimes Act, s 75A(1).
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence[12] on the ground that the individual sentences, the total effective sentence and the non-parole period are manifestly excessive.
[12]The applicant also sought an extension of time within which to file his notice of application for leave to appeal. That application was not opposed and was granted by a judicial registrar on 11 April 2023.
For the reasons that follow, we would grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal.
Factual background
At the age of 20, the applicant committed a series of offences over two distinct episodes of offending.[13] The first episode lasted for around three hours, from 9:30 pm on 10 April 2022 to 12:30 am on 11 April 2022. The second episode occurred on the morning of 13 April 2022. The applicant was on bail at the time of the offending. The details of the two episodes are as follows.
[13]Director of Public Prosecutions v Seualuga [2022] VCC 1853, [4] (‘Reasons’).
At 9:30 pm on 10 April 2022, the applicant broke into a house in Truganina by kicking in the back door. He had a hammer with him. The occupants of the house were not present. This conduct constituted charge 1, burglary, and two related summary offences, contravening a condition of bail and committing an indictable offence while on bail. While in the house the applicant damaged various items, including doors, a television, and a vehicle, constituting charge 2, criminal damage.
The applicant then went to the neighbouring property. He was wearing black clothes and a black mask with cut outs over the mouth and eyes. The occupants of that property were in the front yard and the applicant moved towards them. They went inside their house and shut the door. The applicant banged on the door and demanded the keys for the neighbouring property. He banged on a glass panel which broke. This conduct constituted charge 4, criminal damage. He then put his hand through the broken glass panel and tried to open the door. This conduct constituted charge 3, attempted aggravated burglary, and a related summary offence, committing an indictable offence while on bail. The occupants pushed the door shut. The applicant left after a few minutes.
The applicant then went to a different house in Truganina where an occupier was present and asleep. He stole the occupant’s motorcycle from the garage. This conduct constituted charge 5, aggravated burglary, charge 6, theft, and a related summary offence, committing an indictable offence while on bail. The motorcycle was later recovered.
At about midnight on the same night the applicant, who was travelling on the motorcycle he had stolen, approached an ‘Uber Eats’ delivery driver who had just parked his car to complete a delivery. The applicant was wearing full protective motorcycle equipment. He asked for the driver’s phone. The driver asked the applicant not to take the phone, because it had pictures of his young baby on it. The applicant asked again and produced a hammer. He held the hammer up to the victim and told him not to be a hero. The applicant took the phone, but gave it back to the victim when he saw that it had a cracked screen. This conduct constituted charge 7, armed robbery. He then asked the victim for his wallet and took $50 from it. The applicant then got into the victim’s vehicle and drove it away. This conduct constituted charge 8, theft and a related summary offence, committing an indictable offence while on bail.
At about 12:25 am on 11 April 2022, the applicant drove into a car park at a 7-Eleven store in Tarneit. There were customers in the store, but the doors were locked. The applicant, wearing a black balaclava, approached the store but the store attendant did not open the doors. The applicant yelled for the doors to be opened and attempted to enter the store. The attendant pressed the duress button and allowed two customers into the ‘safety room’ inside the store. The applicant kicked the glass doors and hit them multiple times with the hammer. The glass was damaged but it did not break. The applicant then drove off. This conduct constituted charge 9, attempted aggravated burglary, charge 10, intentionally damage property, and a related summary charge, committing an indictable offence while on bail.
The second episode of offending occurred on 13 April 2022. At about 9:30 am the applicant went to a service station in Williams Landing. He jumped the counter. The store attendant tried to leave but he could not. The applicant said ‘don’t run away, give me the smokes’. He was holding the same hammer he had with him during his previous offending. He took packets of cigarettes and then asked for money. The store attendant opened the till and the applicant took about $200 in cash. This conduct constituted charge 11, armed robbery, and a related summary charge, committing an indictable offence while on bail.
The applicant was arrested on 14 April 2022. During the execution of a search warrant at the applicant’s home on that date, police located items including a bag with cigarette packets, gloves, $390 in cash, clothing which matched that seen in CCTV footage, a black backpack, motorcycle helmet, a hammer and a balaclava.
The sentencing judge’s reasons
The sentencing judge commenced by observing that the applicant had a prior criminal history. In February 2020, without conviction, he was fined an aggregate of $500 for charges of intentionally damaging property and resisting an emergency worker on duty, theft, throwing a missile causing damage, and bail offences. In March 2020 he was placed on a 12 month community correction order (‘CCO’) for carjacking, robbery, theft and obtaining property by deception. His Honour then set out the offending in question. He also observed that two victims, the occupants of the home the subject of the attempted aggravated burglary (charges 3 and 4), had filed victim impact statements in relation to the offending.
Next the judge set out the applicant’s personal circumstances, including that he was a regular user of cannabis and had told Mr McKinnon, a forensic psychologist, that he was under the influence of cannabis during the offending.
The judge correctly set out the relevant sentencing considerations. He took into account the applicant’s relatively early plea of guilty and the fact that the plea was made during the COVID-19 pandemic, which enhanced its utilitarian value. The judge also accepted that the plea demonstrated some remorse by the applicant. The judge also took into account the circumstances in which the applicant had been imprisoned, namely the effect of the lockdown restrictions imposed during the pandemic.
The judge then turned to the fact that the applicant was a youthful offender, by reference to the decision in R v Mills.[14] However, he observed that general deterrence retains a role in offending of the kind in issue, by reference to R v Wyley and Azzopardi v The Queen.[15]
[14][1998] 4 VR 235 (‘Mills’).
[15]Reasons, [30]-[31] and [33], quoting R v Wyley [2009] VSCA 17, [20]–[21] (Maxwell P) (‘Wyley’) and Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43, 57 [44] (Redlich JA, Coghlan JA agreeing at 70 [92] and Macaulay JA agreeing at 70 [93]); [2011] VSCA 372 (‘Azzopardi’).
The judge correctly described the applicant’s offending as ‘very serious’, noting that:
(a)there were six sets of victims;
(b)the applicant was in an ‘alcohol and drug-fuelled rage’;
(c)the offending was at night-time;
(d)on occasions the applicant was masked;
(e)the applicant was armed with, and used, a hammer as a weapon;
(f)on three separate occasions the applicant offended at people's homes;
(g)on two occasions the applicant offended at ‘soft targets’, namely the convenience stores part of petrol stations;
(h)on one occasion the applicant offended against a civilian in the street working as an Uber delivery driver;
(i)the offending encompassed violence, dishonesty and attacks on property and persons; and
(j)all of the offending occurred while the applicant was on bail.
The judge observed that the only explanation put forward was that the applicant had transferred his anger about his father’s alcohol driven violence onto the victims of the offending, while under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
The judge assessed the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation as ‘guarded’, due to the escalation in his offending and his drug and alcohol use. His Honour also took into account the risk of the applicant’s deportation upon release (by reason of him being a non-citizen).
The judge decided not to make a Youth Justice Centre order, although the prosecutor submitted that such an order was within range for this offending. The applicant had been assessed for such an order, but was considered to be unsuitable for such an order. The judge observed that such an order would not properly reflect the criminality of the offending.
His Honour again referred to the applicant’s youth, and the fact that this would be the applicant’s first period of custody. He stated that he took this into account in determining the appropriate cumulation between the sentences for each charge. He also took into account the principal of totality, which requires moderation of cumulation to avoid a crushing sentence.
The parties’ submissions
The applicant contended that the individual sentences, the order for cumulation and the total effective sentence were manifestly excessive, having regard in particular to:
(a)the applicant’s youth;
(b)his plea of guilty; and
(c)the objective seriousness of the offending.
As to youth, after setting out the relevant principles from Mills and Azzopardi, the applicant submitted that, in cases of aggravated burglary, the relevance of youth is such that ‘notwithstanding the uplift in sentencing practice following Hogarth, non-custodial sentences were amongst the range of sentencing dispositions utilised with respect to offenders of 20 years of age or less’,[16] and that even for such serious offending, youth and immaturity can be ‘considerations of particular importance as mitigating factors’. In relation to his particular circumstances, the applicant accepted that he had relevant prior convictions for carjacking, robbery, theft and obtaining property by deception, for which he was placed on a CCO; however he observed that he had completed the CCO without incident. Further, and despite that prior criminal history, he submitted that it was significant that the sentence imposed was the applicant’s first period of imprisonment, such that the principle set out in Mills — that ‘where the offender has not previously been incarcerated, a shorter period of imprisonment may be justified’[17] — was particularly relevant. He submitted that the seriousness of the offending was not such as to significantly diminish the weight to be accorded to his youth.
[16]Bradshaw v The Queen (2017) 269 A Crim R 67, 78 [45] (Kyrou and Redlich JJA); [2017] VSCA 273.
[17][1998] 4 VR 235, 241.
As for the seriousness of the offending, in relation to the base sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment, imposed on charge 3 — attempted burglary — he submitted that this was an attempt, not a completed offence, that the offending only lasted a few minutes, that he had not brandished a weapon at the occupants. In relation to charge 5 — aggravated burglary — for which a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment was imposed, he submitted that that involved entry into a garage with intent to steal, without any confrontation with the occupant. The further charge of attempted burglary, for which a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment was imposed, concerned kicking and hitting the glass doors to the store with a hammer, while the attendant and customers were inside, the only effect being some damage to the doors. The applicant accepted that the offending was serious, essentially for the reasons the judge gave, but submitted that that seriousness did not diminish the mitigatory effect of youth, ‘particularly for an offender such as the applicant who has not previously served any period of imprisonment and has successfully completed a 12-month community correction order’.
As to totality and cumulation, the applicant submitted that he fell to be sentenced for 11 indictable offences, 10 of which had been committed within a three hour period on the night of 10 April 2022 and into the morning of 11 April 2022. In those circumstances, he contended that ‘it was appropriate that there be significant concurrency between the individual sentences imposed’, and that the judge’s orders for cumulation resulted in a manifestly excessive total effective sentence.
The applicant also relied upon his plea of guilty, the risk of deportation, the fact that he had some prospects of rehabilitation and the effect of the lockdown restrictions on the applicant’s experience of prison.
There was no real dispute between the parties concerning the relevant principles to be applied. However, the respondent emphasised the passage in Azzopardi in which this Court observed that where the degree of criminality in the offending is such as to require the sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community to become more prominent in the sentencing calculus, the weight to be attached to youth will be correspondingly reduced. The respondent submitted that the offending in issue in this case was very serious, for the reasons given by the judge. In particular, the respondent pointed to the fact that the attempted aggravated burglary for which the applicant was given the base sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment:
was committed upon a family with 2 young children present, all of whom observed a large man dressed all in black, at night, and wearing a black balaclava, smash the front door of their home with a hammer and put his hand inside the home, whilst loudly demanding the keys for next door. The victim impact statements tendered on the plea show that the ongoing impact of the offending to the adult and child victims was very significant.
The respondent pointed to the fact that the judge had referred to the mitigating factors upon which the applicant relied, but also took into account the applicant’s prior convictions, his guarded prospects of rehabilitation, the maximum penalties and the fact that all the offences were committed while the applicant was on bail. The judge also had regard to current sentencing practice, and the respondent referred to the sentencing statistics for attempted aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, burglary and armed robbery. Further, the respondent pointed out that the applicant had been assessed as unsuitable for a Youth Justice Centre (‘YJC’) order. The respondent sought to distinguish Balshaw, pointing out that in that case the applicant had no relevant prior convictions, there were no ‘soft targets’ or child victims, there was a positive YJC report, there were fewer offences and fewer victims, the applicant had served some ‘Renzella time’ and the applicant had been on bail for nine months ahead of the plea hearing and had engaged in significant attempts to rehabilitate himself.
The respondent submitted that the judge’s reasons for sentence ‘reveal a very careful consideration of all relevant sentencing factors, applied appropriately in a typically difficult case involving balancing the mitigatory effect of an offender’s youth, with other important sentencing objectives in light of the clear gravity of the offending’.
Consideration
In considering a ground of appeal based on manifest excess, it is important always to bear firmly in mind that, in order to succeed, it is necessary for an applicant to establish that the sentence imposed by the judge was wholly outside the range available in the sound exercise of the sentencing discretion.[18] It is not sufficient that this Court might have imposed a different sentence or a different non-parole period. In our opinion, that high threshold is met in the present case.
[18]Clarkson v The Queen(2011) 32 VR 361, 384 [89] (Maxwell ACJ, Nettle, Neave, Redlich and Harper JJA); [2011] VSCA 157; DPP v Karazisis(2010) 31 VR 634, 662–3 [127] (Ashley, Redlich and Weinberg JJA); [2010] VSCA 350.
It is convenient to commence with the base sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment, imposed for the offence of attempted aggravated burglary. The offence carried a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. The offending was undoubtedly serious, given that the occupants of the home — a couple and their two young children — were confronted by a masked man, at night, violently attempting to gain entry to their home. Nonetheless, it was of short duration and did not involve the applicant gaining entry to the home.
Importantly, the applicant can call in aid several mitigating factors. First, his youth must be given significant weight. As this Court has often emphasised,[19] youth must be a primary consideration when sentencing a young person, and in such cases rehabilitation will generally be more important than general deterrence. That is so even though, as this Court held in Azzopardi, where the degree of criminality increases, the weight to be attached to youth is reduced.[20] Importantly for the present case, if the offender has not previously been incarcerated, a shorter period of imprisonment may be justified;[21] indeed, it has been said that a youthful offender ‘is not to be sent to an adult prison if such a disposition can be avoided’.[22] In the present case, detention in an adult prison cannot be avoided, but the sentence to be imposed must reflect the applicant’s youth. The nature of the applicant’s offending was serious, but it involved a youthful lack of reflection and thought. Although he had set out with a mask and a hammer, the offending was not sophisticated and did not involve extensive planning. It was committed while the applicant was alcohol and drug affected and was of relatively short duration, born of poorly directed anger. The applicant’s youth and immaturity were, in our opinion, considerations of particular importance as mitigating factors.
[19]Mills [1998] 4 VR 235, 242 (Batt JA, Phillips CJ agreeing at 236, Charles JA agreeing at 236). See also Turae v The King [2023] VSCA 303, [29] (Kennedy JA, Kidd AJA); Buckley v The Queen (2022) 300 A Crim R 201, 204 [8] (Maxwell P; T Forrest JA).
[20](2011) 35 VR 43, 57 [44] (Redlich JA, Coghlan AJA agreeing at 70 [92], Macaulay AJA agreeing at 70 [92].]
[21]Mills [1998] 4 VR 235, 241 (Batt JA, Phillips CJ agreeing at 236, Charles JA agreeing at 236).
[22]Mills [1998] 4 VR 235, 241 (Batt JA, Phillips CJ agreeing at 236, Charles JA agreeing at 236).
Furthermore, this will be the applicant’s first period of imprisonment in adult custody. This sentence may ‘cast the die’ for the applicant’s future. In that regard, rehabilitation must in the present case be a first order consideration, both for the applicant and for the future well-being of the community. In this case the objective seriousness of the offending does not significantly dimmish the importance of rehabilitation, requiring less weight to be given to general deterrence and punishment. It is also important, particularly for a youthful offender, to avoid a crushing sentence.
In addition, the applicant had a dysfunctional upbringing and exposure to violence as a child, which, while not rising to the level of social deprivation considered in Bugmy v The Queen,[23] may be taken into account as part of his general background.
[23](2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37.
Finally, the applicant’s plea of guilty, which was made at an early stage at a time when the courts were facing a backlog of cases generated by the COVID-19 pandemic, must be given significant weight. In particular, Worboyesv The Queen requires that the sentence imposed on the applicant reflect a palpable degree of amelioration of sentence.[24] In our opinion a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment for attempted aggravated burglary does not meet that requirement.
[24][2021] VSCA 169, [35] (Priest, Kaye and T Forrest JJA).
Both sides drew to the Court’s attention the Sentencing Advisory Council statistics on sentencing outcomes for attempted aggravated burglary in the higher courts from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021 (being a period largely prior to the COVID-19 pandemic).[25] Those statistics reveal that for non-aggregate sentences, the minimum imprisonment length was 0.25 years, the maximum was 3.67 years, and the median was 2 years, meaning that half of the imprisonment lengths were below 2 years and half were above 2 years. While sentencing statistics must be used with some caution, they reveal in this case that the sentence was towards the upper end of the range of current sentencing practices, which simply cannot be justified for a youthful offender who pleaded guilty and will face adult prison for the first time.
[25]In the course of oral submissions, the applicant also relied on the most recent Sentencing Advisory Council statistics for attempted aggravated burglary in the higher courts for 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2022. However, there has been no change in the statistics for the shortest, longest and median prison sentences.
We note the respondent’s submission that Balshaw — a case in which a youthful offender was sentenced to a term of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment in a YJC for the offence of aggravated burglary — may be distinguished from the present case. We accept those submissions. However, Balshaw was not relied upon as, and is not, a precedent that requires the conclusion that the present sentence was within range. Rather, it is relevant for the principles articulated.
We agree that the judge’s reasons reflect a conscientious approach to the difficult task of balancing sentencing objectives. But, in our opinion, had the above matters been properly taken into account, a sentence well below 3 years’ imprisonment was required.
We consider that the same reasoning applies to:
(a)the individual sentence of one year for charge 1 (burglary), given that that offending was not particularly serious and nothing was taken from the home;
(b)to the sentence of 9 months for charge 2 (criminal damage), given that the damage, although gratuitous, was relatively minor;
(c)to the sentence of 9 months for charge 4 (criminal damage associated with charge 3), given that the damage was only to a glass panel;
(d)the sentence of two years for charge 5 (aggravated burglary), given that the circumstances of that offending — the theft of a motorbike from a garage — did not involve any interaction with the occupant;
(e)the sentence of one year for charge 6, being theft of the motorbike, which was ultimately recovered;
(f)the sentence of 9 months year for charge 10, being the damage to the door of the convenience store, which was relatively minor.
However, we do not consider that the same reasoning applies to the sentences of 2 years’ imprisonment imposed for charges 7 and 11 (armed robbery). In each of those cases the maximum penalty was 25 years, and the applicant threatened the victim with a weapon (the hammer). Nor does this reasoning apply to charge 8, which was a rolled up charge of involving the theft of a mobile phone (which was then returned to the victim), $50 and the victim’s car.
It follows from the above that the total effective sentence based on the individual sentences and their cumulation was also manifestly excessive.
It thus falls to this Court to resentence the applicant.
Bearing in mind the relevant sentencing principles, and noting the seriousness of the offending, but giving due weight to the applicant’s youth, the fact that this is his first time in custody, and his guilty plea during the pandemic, we would sentence the applicant as follows:[26]
[26]We have made no change to the sentences imposed on the applicant for the related summary offending, or the lack of cumulation for those sentences, which we regard as appropriate.
Charge on Indictment
Offence
Max Penalty
Sentence
Cumulation
1 Burglary 10 years 6 months 1 month 2 Criminal damage 10 years 4 months Nil 3 Attempted aggravated burglary 20 years 2 years and 2 months 4 months 4 Criminal damage 10 years 5 months Nil 5 Aggravated burglary 25 years 2 years 3 months 6 Theft 10 years 9 months 1 month 7 Armed robbery 25 years 2 years and 4 months Base 8 Theft 5 years 1 year 1 month 9 Attempted aggravated burglary 20 years 2 years 3 months 10 Criminal damage 10 years 6 months Nil 11 Armed robbery 25 years 2 years 3 months Related Summary Offences 3 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 4 Contravene a conduct condition of bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 7 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 11 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 16 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 20 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil 23 Commit indictable offence while on bail 30 penalty units or 3 months 1 month Nil
The result is a total effective sentence of 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. We would impose a non-parole period of 2 years.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act we record that, but for the applicant’s plea of guilty, we would have imposed a total effective sentence of 5 years and 9 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.
---
2
13
0