R v Edwards
[2018] NZHC 256
•27 February 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2016-092-005704
[2018] NZHC 256
THE QUEEN v
KERROD HAWEA EDWARDS
Hearing: 27 February 2018 Appearances:
E McCaughan and R Gibbs for the Crown
H de Groot on behalf of Q Duff for the Defendant
Judgment:
27 February 2018
SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J
Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Manukau Counsel: Q Duff, Auckland
H de Groot, Auckland
R v EDWARDS [2018] NZHC 256 [27 February 2018]
Introduction
[1] Mr Edwards you appear today for sentence having pleaded guilty in the District Court on 19 January 2017 to two charges, namely:
(a)One representative charge of sexual connection with a young person under 16;1 and
(b)One charge of meeting a young person under 16 following sexual grooming.2
[2] Sexual connection with a young person under 16 carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.3 Meeting a young person under 16 following sexual grooming carries a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.4
[3] Having regard to your history of offending and the offending for which you are to be sentenced today, on 27 September 2017 Judge Bergseng, in the Manukau District Court, transferred the sentencing to the High Court for consideration of a sentence of preventive detention.5 That is why you appear for sentencing in this Court.
[4] Ultimately, after reviewing the health assessors’ reports, the Crown submits that a sentence of preventive detention is not required in your case. Instead it submits that a finite sentence, with the ability for the Department of Corrections to apply for an extended supervision order, would provide adequate protection for society.
[5] On your behalf, Mr de Groot submits that you should be sentenced to a nominal period of home detention, which would recognise the fact that you have spent more than one year on custodial remand.
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1).
2 Crimes Act, s 131B(1).
3 Section 134(1).
4 Section 131B(1).
5 Sentencing Act 2002, s 90(2).
[6] Although the Crown now submits that a sentence of preventive detention is not required, I can still impose a sentence of preventive detention on you if I consider it appropriate.6
[7] Before I determine whether I will do so, I must first identify what the appropriate finite sentence should be.
Factual background
[8] There is one victim of your offending. She is entitled to name suppression and for the purpose of these sentencing notes, I shall refer to the victim as “A”.
[9]The relevant events occurred between December 2015 and January 2016.
[10] Mr Edwards, you were 20 years old at the time of the offending. A, your victim, was 14 years old. She lived in Auckland. You did not.
[11] You had a Facebook page and you engaged in mutual online conversations with the victim across Facebook.
[12] Over time, a relationship began to develop. In early December 2015, you suggested a long-term relationship with A. You even suggested moving to Auckland to facilitate such a relationship.
[13] A did not initially show enthusiasm for either suggestion. She eventually told you on at least two occasions that she could not commit to a serious relationship as she was only 14 years of age. She reinforced this by saying she could not commit because she was so young.
[14] Regardless, you subsequently moved to Auckland, to an address in Papatoetoe. At some point after you moved, you and A decided to meet.
[15] On 24 December 2015, A returned home with ‘love bites’ on her neck. Her father subsequently grounded her. On the morning of 5 January 2016, A asked to stay
6 Section 87(3).
overnight at a friend’s house. Her father said “no” but allowed her to go for the day instead.
[16] A then travelled to your address in Papatoetoe. Over the course of the next three days, you and A engaged in sexual intercourse on a number of occasions. This was despite your prior knowledge that A was only 14 years old.
[17] When A failed to return home on the evening of 5 January 2016, her father asked her friends where she was. Her friends told him that she was with a male known to them by the name of “Hawea Barclay” and who was in his 20’s.
[18] On the evening of 6 January 2016, A’s father reported her missing to the Henderson Police. Messages were left on both A’s mobile phone and Facebook account asking her to get in touch.
[19] At around 5 pm on 7 January 2016, A updated her Facebook page to state that she was safe and not being held against her will. Later that night, the Police located A at your address in Papatoetoe and returned her home.
[20] A did not receive any physical injuries as a result of the offending. She and her family will, however, require counselling.
[21] When you were spoken to by the Police you admitted to having sexual intercourse with A over a period of days but stated that A had lied to you and told you that she was 17 years of age. It was only after you were confronted with the Facebook conversation in which A had told you that she was 14, that you confessed.
Approach to sentencing
[22] As I have said, I must first determine an appropriate finite sentence, before going on to consider whether I should impose a sentence of preventive detention. Setting a finite sentence involves three steps.7
7 R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA); Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607.
[23] The law says that I should first set a starting point for your sentence to take into account the facts of your offending, and then adjust it up or down taking into account your personal circumstances. The last step is to consider what discount you should receive for a guilty plea.
[24] I also note that throughout this process, I will have regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing contained in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Of particular relevance to this type of offending is the need to hold you accountable for the harm done to A, to promote in you a sense of responsibility for and acknowledgment of that harm, to denounce your behaviour and to deter you and others from committing similar offending.
[25] I must also take into account the gravity of your offending, the need for consistency with appropriate sentencing levels and the need to impose the least restrictive sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances.
Starting point
[26] In setting a starting point I take the charge of sexual connection with a young person under 16 as the lead offence. I will then impose an uplift for the charge of meeting a young person under 16 following sexual grooming to reach an overall starting point.
[27] The Court of Appeal in R v Davidson endorsed this approach in the context of dealing with these two offences, stating that “independent offending under s 131B will normally be seen as an aggravating aspect of the s 134 offending leading to a significant uplift in the starting point which would otherwise apply for s 134 offences”.8
[28] The Crown submits that I should take a starting point of between three years, and three years and six months’ imprisonment for this lead charge. Mr McCaughan, appearing today for the Crown, submits that a starting point at the lower end of that
8 R v Davidson [2008] NZCA 484 at [28].
range is appropriate. Mr de Groot submits that a starting point of two years and nine months’ imprisonment is appropriate.
[29] In order to decide on the starting point, I must identify the relevant aggravating features of your offending. The Court of Appeal in Philpot v R recognised a range of specific aggravating factors for this type of offending:9
(a)The length of time over which the offender engaged in sexual conduct;
(b)The frequency of that conduct;
(c)Breach of trust;
(d)The vulnerability of the victim;
(e)The impact of the offending on the victim;
(f)Demeaning and degrading sexual behaviour;
(g)Grooming;
(h)Planning and predatory behaviour; and
(i)Use of alcohol.
[30]Here, I note the following aggravating factors of your offending:
(a)Vulnerability of A/age disparity:10 A was vulnerable due to her young age at the time of the offending. There was a six-year age gap between the two of you. A was 14 years of age and you were 20 years of age.
(b)Planning and predatory behaviour:11 You moved to an address in Auckland for the purpose of facilitating the offending against A. However, because your grooming behaviour is reflected in the second charge and because there will be an uplift on that charge, I will take care not to double count this factor.
(c)Frequency of the conduct: You were with A for three days between the morning of 5 January and the evening of 7 January 2016. The conduct
9 Philpot v R [2015] NZCA 212 at [40], fn 7.
10 Sentencing Act, s 9(1)(g).
11 Section 9(1)(i).
involved was full sexual intercourse. However, it is not clear how many times sexual intercourse occurred. The summary of facts refers to “a number of occasions”. When you spoke to Dr Djokovic, you said you and A had sex several times.
(d)Impact of the offending on A:12 In this case A has declined to provide a victim impact statement. However, the summary of facts states that A and her family will require counselling.
[31] These factors are accepted on your behalf in the submissions your counsel filed in the District Court.
[32]There are no mitigating features of the offending.
[33] I now turn to previous cases to assist with setting the starting point. I first mention two cases referred to by the Crown.
Case law
[34] In Berry v Police,13 the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of sexual connection with a young person under 16. The appellant was 19 years old, while the victim was 13 years old. After communicating on Facebook, when the victim told the appellant her age, the two met in person. They had sexual intercourse on at least two separate occasions. The District Court Judge identified a starting point of three years’ imprisonment, noting the age disparity, the fact that full penetrative sex occurred and the abuse of trust.14 On appeal, Ellis J held that the appropriate starting point was two years and nine months’ imprisonment.15
[35] In Fairbrother v R,16 the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of sexual connection with a young person under 16. The appellant was 19 years old, while the victim was 12 years old. After attending a gathering on the marae, the appellant met
12 Section 9(1)(d).
13 Berry v Police [2014] NZHC 2852.
14 At [13]-[14].
15 At [25].
16 Fairbrother v R [2013] NZCA 340.
the victim. At night while everyone was asleep, he lay next to the victim and put her hand on his penis. The following day, he took her to some trees and engaged in sexual intercourse with her for a few minutes. The District Court Judge identified the aggravating features of the offending as being that it was premeditated, the age gap, that there had been some “targeting” and the effect on the victim.17 The Judge took a starting point of three years’ imprisonment.18 After applying discounts for youth, a lack of previous convictions, mental impairment and the appellant’s guilty plea, he reached an end sentence of two years’ imprisonment.19
[36] On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.20 But it quashed the sentence and replaced it with a sentence of one year and 10 months’ imprisonment on the basis that the Judge had performed a calculation error:
[43] … it is longer than the sentence the Judge intended to impose, and we consider that his intended sentence better accords with the appellant's offence and circumstances.
[37] The Crown submits this offending is more serious than that in both Berry and Fairbrother because of the frequency of the conduct, namely that you and A were together for over three days and had sexual intercourse multiple times. In Berry, on the other hand, the offending occurred on two separate occasions, and that was a relevant factor. In Fairbrother, it was one occasion. I accept the Crown’s submission.
[38] In the further case of R v R,21 the appellant had pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual connection with a young person under 16. The appellant was 17 years old, while the victim was 12 years old. After becoming friends on Facebook, the two began communicating. The victim told the appellant her age. Eventually, the two arranged to meet. On two separate occasions, they had sexual intercourse. The District Court Judge identified the aggravating features of the offending as being that it happened on
17 At [18], [21].
18 At [21].
19 At [22].
20 At [43].
21 R v R [2015] NZHC 3305.
two occasions, there was full sexual intercourse, the age disparity between the appellant and the victim, and the vulnerability of the victim.22
[39] On appeal, Dunningham J upheld the starting point of two years and nine months’ imprisonment.23 She commented that “a starting point of anywhere between two and three years was available to the Judge”.24
[40] Following the cases I have mentioned, I adopt a starting point of three years’ imprisonment on the lead charge of sexual connection with a young person under 16.
Uplift
[41] The Crown submits that a starting point of around 18 months’ imprisonment would be available for the second charge of meeting a young person under 16 following sexual grooming. But, taking into account totality, the Crown submits an uplift of 10 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.
[42]Mr de Groot submits that an uplift of three months is appropriate.
[43] The Crown relies on Morgan v R.25 In that case, the appellant was found guilty at trial of seven charges of doing an indecent act on a young person, three charges of doing an indecent act in public, and one charge of committing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend, all involving one female victim. This related to incidents over a three-month period where the victim came to the appellant’s house, as she was friends with his teenage nephew who lived with him. He was also found guilty of one charge of meeting a young person after sexual grooming, involving a second female victim. This related to messages over Facebook:
[3] In February 2012 the appellant started communicating with the second victim B, aged 13, via text messages and Facebook. The messages contained sexually explicit language. The appellant arranged to meet with B in Dunedin and travelled there with his nephew for that purpose. There were further sexually explicit text messages following this meeting.
22 At [8].
23 At [23].
24 At [23].
25 Morgan v R [2013] NZCA 530.
[44] The District Court took a starting point of three years’ imprisonment on the lead charge of doing an indecent act on a young person.26 He identified the aggravating features as the victim’s vulnerability, the age disparity, the repeated nature of the offending, the breach of trust and the harm to the victim.27 He did not uplift the sentence for the other offending against the same female victim. He regarded that as “part and parcel of the whole sexual conduct”.28 But he applied a one year cumulative term for the offending against the second female victim:
[5] On the count of meeting a young person after sexual grooming, the Judge considered that a stand alone starting point of two years would have been warranted but, taking totality into account, he applied a cumulative term of one year. There was no deduction for mitigating factors, so the end sentence imposed was four and a half years: three and a half years for the offending against S and a cumulative term of one year for the offending against B.
[45] On appeal, the Court upheld the starting point of three years’ imprisonment and the eventual end sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment.29
[46] The Crown submits that your offending is broadly comparable. Both cases involved communication before travel to meet with the victims. While the offending in Morgan occurred against a different victim, the Crown submits that the grooming charge involves the additional features of you relocating permanently to Auckland to pursue the relationship, despite A’s initial reluctance.
[47] Here, unlike in Morgan (where the offending was against two separate victims), a concurrent sentence of imprisonment is appropriate.30 In accordance with totality principles, I consider that an uplift of six months’ imprisonment is appropriate to reflect the additional charge.
Overall starting point
[48] Therefore, I reach an overall starting point of three years and six months’ imprisonment.
26 At [4].
27 At [4].
28 At [4].
29 At [11], [15].
30 Sentencing Act, s 84(2).
Personal aggravating and mitigating features
[49] I now need to consider your personal circumstances to see whether I should adjust your starting point.
Pre-sentence report dated 20 June 2017
[50] Mr Edwards, I now refer to matters personal to you by reference to the pre- sentence report. You are now 22 years of age. You have several previous convictions. Only one of those involves sexual offending. You have never received a sentence of imprisonment. But I note the pre-sentence report writer was concerned as your criminal history reflects an ongoing escalation in terms of the seriousness of your offending.
[51] I also note that you disputed a number of matters in the summary of facts. You genuinely believed you were in a relationship with A. You say you had feelings for each other. That is why you bear her no ill-will.
[52] You clearly have had problems relating to your mental health. At the age of 10, you were diagnosed with borderline intelligence. But you have not been diagnosed with a major mental illness in the psychiatric sense. You have, however, had several mental health services contacts over the past few years. The pre-sentence report indicates that you have been self-harming since the age of 12 and you have attempted suicide in the past. The report also notes that you have a concerning level of methamphetamine and alcohol use.
[53] Ultimately, the pre-sentence report deems you at a low risk of reoffending generally based on your limited criminal history. But it assesses you as at a high risk of sexual reoffending if you do not continue to engage with mental health services and complete a programme with a focus on sexual offending. I acknowledge that you state you are motivated to comply with any sentence imposed.
[54] Having summarised the report, I deal first with the aggravating features relating to you personally.
Previous convictions
[55] The Crown says I should uplift your sentence by six months to take into account your previous convictions. Mr de Groot accepts that there should be an uplift but says it should only be three months.
[56] You have one relevant previous conviction. That is for indecently assaulting a female under 12 on 1 November 2012. You were 17 years of age at the time. I note that in the pre-sentence report, it is said that you maintained that you were not guilty of this previous offence of indecent assault. The victim was related to you. You said that your mother and the victim’s mother had a fight and as a result, you were wrongfully accused and only pleaded guilty after your lawyer told you to. The Crown additionally notes that at the time of this previous offending you were subject to intensive supervision.
[57] I consider an uplift of four months’ imprisonment is appropriate to take into account your previous conviction, resulting in a sentence of three years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
[58]I now turn to mitigating factors personal to you.
Youth
[59] Section 9(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act specifically recognises that the age of an offender can be a mitigating factor. But there is no presumption of a discount for youth. An assessment must be made in the circumstances of the case. The Court of Appeal in Churchward v R stated that youth is relevant during sentencing in the following ways:31
(a)Age-related neurological differences between young people and adults;
(b)The effect of imprisonment on young people;
(c)Young people have a greater capacity for rehabilitation, particularly as their character is not as well formed as that of adults.
31 Churchward v R [2011] NZCA 531 at [76].
[60] Here, as I have mentioned, you were 20 years of age at the time of the offending.
[61] The Crown acknowledges that a discount is appropriate and submits that a global six-month discount for youth, demonstration of some insight and remorse is appropriate.
[62] Mr de Groot also submits that a discount for youth is appropriate and says that a global discount of around 12 months for your youth, together with diminished intellectual capacity or understanding, developing insight and a measure of remorse, should be deducted.
[63] I accept that the factors mentioned by the Court of Appeal in Churchward are present in your case but I will consider the discount for your youth, including your prospects for rehabilitation, together with your cognitive impairment which I address next.
Cognitive impairment
[64] The Court of Appeal’s decision in E (CA689/10) v R is the leading case on the availability of discounts for mental illness:32
[68] A mental disorder falling short of exculpating insanity may be capable of mitigating a sentence either because: if causative of the offending, it moderates the culpability; it renders less appropriate or more subjectively punitive a sentence of imprisonment; or because of a combination of those reasons. The moderation of culpability follows from the principle that any general criminal liability is founded on conduct performed rationally by one who exercises a willed choice to offend.
(Citations omitted)
[65] There is evidence that your intellectual ability is below average and your borderline diagnosis (from your childhood) remains accurate. It is reported that you do not have a formal disability but you are less cognitively able than many of your peers.
32 E (CA689/10) v R [2010] NZCA 13.
[66] There is, however, no evidence to indicate that your cognitive impairments were directly causative of your offending. I nevertheless consider that the cognitive impairments were related to your offending. As I have already noted, your diagnoses include a personality disorder involving borderline antisocial features and you have a mild impairment of an intellectual sense. Your emotional immaturity made you believe you were in a genuine relationship with A and you find it easier to relate to women younger than yourself.
[67] Despite your mild intellectual impairment, the evidence is that you have expressed a willingness to engage in treatment and you appear motivated.
[68] I give a discount of 10 months for your youth, willingness to engage in treatment and your cognitive impairment. That brings the sentence to three years’ imprisonment.
[69] Despite Mr de Groot’s submission, I do not include a discount for remorse. You say you wish the offending had not happened and that you have no ill feeling towards A. You also say you never think about her. That is not genuine remorse.
Guilty plea
[70]Finally, I address the discount for your guilty plea.
[71] Mr de Groot submits that the full discount of 25 per cent is appropriate because you pleaded guilty at the first trial callover. The Crown agrees, and so do I.
[72]I therefore discount the sentence by 25 per cent, namely nine months.
Effective end sentence
[73] I would therefore impose an end finite sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment.
Preventive detention
[74] Preventive detention is a sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite period. If imposed, you will be released only when the Parole Board is satisfied you no longer pose a risk to the community. The purpose of preventive detention is to protect the community from those who pose a significant and on-going risk to the safety of its members.33
[75] There are three prerequisites for imposing preventive detention.34 The first two require the offender to have committed a qualifying violent or sexual offence and to be over 18 years of age at the time of the offending. There is no dispute that those prerequisites are met in your case.
[76]The third prerequisite is as follows:35
(c) the court is satisfied that the person is likely to commit another qualifying sexual or violent offence if the person is released at the sentence expiry date (as specified in subpart 3 of Part 1 of the Parole Act 2002) of any sentence, other than a sentence under this section, that the court is able to impose.
[77] I am required to consider reports from at least two appropriate health assessors about the likelihood of you committing a further such offence.36 Two reports were commissioned for that purpose. The first was a report dated 16 January 2018 from Mr van Rensburg, a registered clinical psychologist. The second report was dated 22 January 2018 from Dr Djokovic, a consultant psychiatrist.
[78] Dr Djokovic diagnosed you with a mild impairment in the intellectual sense. He also made a diagnosis of polysubstance abuse and personality disorder of a mixed type with borderline antisocial features. But he found it unlikely that you are suffering from a major mental illness. So, he could not diagnose you with a mental disorder as defined by the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.
33 Sentencing Act, s 87(1).
34 Section 87(2).
35 Section 87(2)(c).
36 Section 88(1)(b).
[79] In terms of risk of further sexual offending, Dr Djokovic noted the difficulty of such an assessment as it cannot take into account any risk reducing interventions that may occur in the intervening period. Using standardised assessment tools, he characterised your risk of reoffending as “moderate-high”. Dr Djokovic recommends risk reduction strategies, including participation in a sexual offender treatment programme.
[80] In his report, Mr van Rensburg assessed your risk of sexual and violent reoffending as high. A closer analysis of your offending pattern would indicate that violent reoffending while under the influence of disinhibiting substances is a more likely form of reoffending than sexual offending. Should you reoffend sexually, the victim is likely to be a female between the ages of 14 and 16 whom you would try to have a relationship with. You are less likely to commit a non-consensual sexual offence. But he still noted that this overall assessment should be considered within its context. With appropriate treatment, he believed your risk of reoffending could be reduced significantly.
[81] I consider there is enough evidence to indicate that you are likely to commit another qualifying sexual or violent offence (based on these reports).
[82] I must now turn to consider whether to exercise my discretion to impose a sentence of preventive detention. Section 87(4) sets out a range of considerations that I must take into account in considering whether to impose such a sentence:
(a)any pattern of serious offending disclosed by the offender’s history; and
(b)the seriousness of the harm to the community caused by the offending; and
(c)information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in future; and
(d)the absence of, or failure of, efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offending; and
(e)the principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for society.
Pattern of serious offending
[83] I have already referred to your previous criminal history. In my view, you have not committed a sufficient number of violent and sexual offences to constitute a clear pattern of offending.
Seriousness of the harm to the community
[84] There is no doubt that sexual offending against children causes significant harm to the victims, as well as their family and the wider community.
[85] It is serious that you lured A away from her home to engage in a sexual relationship when you knew her age. But I do accept that you do not have a tendency towards non-consensual sexual interactions.
Information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in the future
[86] There is a large degree of overlap between this factor and the third prerequisite.37
[87] I accept that the two reports have assessed your risk of reoffending as ‘high’ and ‘moderate-high’. But I note that both Dr Djokovic and Mr van Rensburg believe that with appropriate treatment, your risk of reoffending could be reduced significantly.
The absence of, or failure of, efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offending
[88] Mr van Rensburg noted that apart from psychotropic medication and very short term psychotherapy, you have not had an opportunity to undergo intensive treatment for your behavioural problems. Both Mr van Rensburg and Dr Djokovic, as well as the writer of the pre-sentence report, state that you are motivated to comply with any treatment. It is anticipated that you could derive rehabilitative benefit from such programmes.
37 Leonard v R [2013] NZCA 553 at [8].
The principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for society
[89] Mr van Rensburg concluded that a determinate sentence of a reasonable length will likely provide adequate protection for society if you attend an intensive treatment programme as part of it.
[90] Dr Djokovic also acknowledged that psychosocial intervention during a finite sentence could bring therapeutic outcomes whereby you develop a greater understanding of your risks and a sense of positive belonging to a community that can be protective against future offending. A period of imprisonment could provide the stability and consistency you need.
[91] I am satisfied that a finite sentence will provide adequate protection for society. But I consider you should complete Corrections programmes relating to sexual offending. I also note the Crown’s observation that there is the ability for the Department of Corrections to apply for an extended supervision order (which is a relevant consideration under this factor).38
Result
[92]Mr Edwards, would you please stand.
[93] I sentence you to two years and three months’ imprisonment on the lead charge of sexual connection with a young person under 16 and 18 months’ imprisonment on the charge of meeting a young person under 16 following sexual grooming, both sentences to be served concurrently.
[94] You have already been given a “first-strike” warning when you entered your guilty plea on 19 January 2017 in the Manukau District Court (as sexual connection with a young person under 16 is a “serious violent offence” under s 86A of the Sentencing Act).
38 R v Parahi [2005] 3 NZLR 356 (CA). See also Grant v R [2017] NZCA 614 at [50]-[53].
[95] Because I am imposing a sentence of imprisonment on you today for a qualifying offence under the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016, you are a registrable offender under this legislation. This means that your name and information relevant to you and your offending will be placed on the Child Sex Offender Register. It also means that you have initial and ongoing reporting obligations under the Act. It is an offence to fail to comply with your reporting obligations without reasonable excuse, or to provide false or misleading information. It is also an offence to apply to register a change of your name without first having obtained the written approval of the Commissioner of Police.
[96] In your case, your reporting obligations begin when you cease to be in custody. As the conviction involves a Class 3 offence under the Act, you will remain on the register and will have to comply with reporting obligations for the remainder of your life.
[97] You will be given written notice of your reporting obligations and the penalties for failing to comply with these obligations.
[98]Stand down please Mr Edwards.
Gordon J
3
7
0