DPP v AK

1 AK.[1] You have been found guilty, by the jury empanelled on your trial, of the murder of Laa Chol at Melbourne on 21 July 2018.

2 The circumstances in which you murdered Laa Chol had a number of serious aspects attaching to them. By a needless act of cowardly violence, you took the life of a decent and caring young woman, and have caused indescribable pain and sorrow to so many of those who loved her. On the other hand, during your young life, you have had a difficult upbringing and background, none of which was of your making. The circumstances of your childhood and early adolescence played a material role in shaping your personality and your responses, and are relevant to an assessment of your culpability - that is, your level of subjective guilt - for the offence which you have committed. The sentence, which I am to impose on you, must, in some way, ultimately balance the seriousness of your offending with a number of mitigating factors, including your background. For that reason, it is necessary for me to describe, in some detail, the circumstances of the offence, and to then summarise relevant matters relating to your personal circumstances. I commence with a description of the offence.

3 At the time of her death, Laa Chol was 19 years of age. She was then a student, undertaking a Diploma of Legal Studies at Victoria University. A few days before her death, Laa Chol, and her friend Dahlia Ali, had booked accommodation at an Airbnb apartment, on the 56th floor of the EQ Tower in A'Beckett Street, Melbourne, for the weekend commencing Friday 20 July. They intended to spend the weekend in the city together, going clubbing and seeing friends.

4 In the afternoon of 20 July, Laa Chol and Dahlia Ali went to the apartment, and settled into it. Later in the afternoon, they invited a number of their friends to attend the apartment. In due course their friends and some other people arrived, and an impromptu party developed, with those present listening to music and drinking alcohol.

5 During the evening the party was joined by other people. In the early hours of Saturday, 21 July, you attended at the EQ Tower with a number of your friends. You and your friends had not been invited to join the party by either Laa Chol or Dahlia Ali. However, a friend of yours, who was at the party, let you into the premises, and took you to the apartment. After you arrived there, Dahlia Ali asked you and your friends to leave, because she had not invited any of you to attend. When you refused to do so, both Dahlia Ali and Laa Chol became annoyed with you.

6 At about the same time, Dahlia Ali observed some of your friends going through the drawers in the bedroom, and she also noted that the mobile telephones, belonging to Laa Chol and herself, had been removed from the room. I add that there was no evidence, and it was not suggested, that you were one of the young men who went through the bedroom drawers or removed the telephones. However, as a result of the conduct of your friends, Laa Chol and Dahlia Ali became quite angry with them. Laa Chol said that no-one was to leave the apartment until the property was returned to her.

7 At about that point, two other male guests of the party decided to leave, having permitted Laa Chol and Dahlia Ali to search them for their phones. Shortly after that, a number of your friends commenced to leave the apartment. As they did so, Laa Chol followed them out into the hallway.

8 The incident that followed was captured by CCTV cameras, and the footage of it became an exhibit in the trial. As Laa Chol exited the apartment, she pushed one of your associates, PM, in the back. They then appeared to have a verbal dispute. In the meantime, you, MM and some of your other friends exited the apartment. MM reached towards Laa Chol and pulled her backwards by the hood of her jumper. You and MM then grabbed hold of Laa Chol and a physical altercation ensued.

9 In the altercation, Laa Chol was kicked and punched. In turn, she threw some punches to try to protect herself. At times, she was held by some of your friends, while others continued to kick and punch her. The altercation moved down towards the lifts. At that point, MM was holding Laa Chol, and you were standing in front of her. You then took one step back. As you did so, you removed a knife from your person with your right hand, and drew your right arm back. You then lunged forward with your left leg, and in doing so, thrust forward with your right arm, stabbing Laa Chol forcefully in the chest. As a result, the knife penetrated her ribcage, nicked her fifth rib, penetrated the sac around her heart, and inflicted an incised wound to the right ventricle of Laa Chol's heart.

10 While MM continued to wrestle with Laa Chol, PM took hold of her and you aimed a kick at her stomach. In the meantime, Dahlia Ali bravely intervened, extricated Laa Chol from the grip of your friends, and helped Laa Chol to return to the apartment. There she collapsed on the floor. At first it was thought that she had suffered an asthma attack. However, it was then noticed that the left side of her chest was bleeding heavily, and the police and ambulance were summonsed. However, by the time they arrived, Laa Chol had passed away.

11 Later on the same day an autopsy was conducted on Laa Chol. Dr Matthew Lynch, who gave evidence about the autopsy, estimated that the knife wound, that you inflicted on Laa Chol, was 3 centimetres in length, and between 5 centimetres and 10 centimetres deep. The knife had damaged Laa Chol's heart, impeding its ability to beat, and it also had caused massive blood loss to her. Unsurprisingly, the cause of death was found to be the stab wound to the chest, which caused internal and external blood loss. Dr Lynch estimated that, given that the knife did not penetrate any bone or other hard structure, a minimum of moderate force was required to inflict the wound.

12 In the meantime, shortly after Laa Chol had been stabbed and had returned to the apartment, you and your friends left the building. You were arrested at your home in Sunshine two days later, on 23 July. On searching your premises, and in conducting other investigations, the police were unable to locate the knife with which you had killed Laa Chol.

13 On arraignment before the jury panel at your trial, you pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter. At the trial, the prosecution did not allege that, when you stabbed Laa Chol, you intended to kill her. Rather, it alleged that you had intended to cause her really serious injury. Accordingly, the sole issue at the trial was whether the jury was satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that, at the time at which you struck the fatal blow that caused the death of Laa Chol, you thereby intended to cause her really serious injury. You are to be sentenced on the basis that the jury was satisfied that that was your intention.

14 By that verdict, you have been convicted of the most serious crime in our legal system, that of the murder of another human being. The maximum sentence for murder is life imprisonment, reflecting the fundamental seriousness of such an offence. Our society rightly regards each human life as being unique and precious. At the time of her death, Laa Chol was just 19 years of age, with her whole life ahead of her. The victim impact statements, which I have carefully read, describe the very special qualities of the person who you murdered. Laa Chol was a devoted, selfless and generous daughter, sister, family member and friend. Her warm and giving personality endeared her to so many. She was a pillar of support to her mother, and a wonderful role model to her sisters and brothers. Your senseless and vicious crime has deprived her of her most basic right, her right to life.

15 As the victim impact statements depict, there are also a number of other victims of your crime, who have suffered, and who will continue to suffer, gravely as a result of it. The statements of her mother, her father, four of her cousins, four of her close friends, and of the Australian Chollo Community, describe, in most moving terms, the extent of the pain and grief suffered by them as a result of your dreadful crime. The lives of each of those persons, and of all others who were close to and who were touched by Laa Chol, will forever be diminished by the terrible tragedy that you have inflicted upon them. The pain and anguish, that they have suffered, are a direct consequence of the murder by you of Laa Chol.

16 I have referred to those victim statements, not in order to determine your sentence according to impermissible emotional considerations, such as retribution or sympathy, but so as to properly acknowledge, and appreciate, the enormity and impact of the serious crime which you have committed.

17 There were a number of aspects to your murder of Laa Chol, which are relevant to an assessment of the seriousness of your offending. Throughout the incident which led to her murder, and at the time that you stabbed her, Laa Chol was outnumbered by you and your friends, each of whom were substantially larger and stronger than her. At the time at which you stabbed her, she was being restrained by one of your friends. To all intents and purposes, she was defenceless. Your actions, in stabbing her, were unprovoked and entirely needless. It is a matter of concern that you resorted to using a knife, and that you did so in such a spontaneous and seemingly casual manner. In doing so, as I have described, you ensured that you inflicted the wound with a substantial degree of force. Your actions were utterly cowardly and callous.

18 Further, you inflicted the stab wound in the context of an incident in which you and your friends were engaging in unacceptable and reprehensible acts of violence towards a young woman. Not content with having stabbed Laa Chol, you then, while she was being restrained by two of your friends, aimed a kick at her stomach. In the moments that followed, you displayed no concern for her welfare, or for the harm that you had caused to her. You made no offer to assist her and you demonstrated an entire disregard for her wellbeing. Rather, you left the scene and in doing so disposed of the weapon which you had used to murder her.

19 It is a matter of concern that you so readily resorted to using a knife in the absence of any provocation or any cause for you to do so. No evidence was advanced as to how you came to have the knife on your person. You gave some explanation of that fact to Mr Coffey, the clinical psychologist, who examined you for the purpose of the plea. However, the explanation that you gave to him was fanciful. At the plea I made it clear that, in the absence of any proper evidence, I was not prepared to act on that explanation. In those circumstances, the fact that you had a knife on your person, and that you were prepared to use it in the way that you did, adds to the seriousness of your offending and your personal responsibility for it.

20 At the time of the offence, you were 17 years of age, having been born on 5 July 2001. By then, you had already accumulated a number of previous convictions. As a result of those convictions, you had been detained in a Youth Justice Detention Centre for a period of 22 months between July 2016 and May 2018.

21 On 15 December 2016, you were convicted by the Melbourne Children's Court, and ordered to be detained in a youth justice centre for fourteen months, for a number of offences, including aggravated burglary, assault with intent to rob, resist police officer, and offences of dishonesty. You had already been remanded in custody in respect of those offences since July 2016.

22 Eight months later, on 9 August 2017, you were sentenced by the Melbourne Children's Court to a further term of fourteen months' detention in a youth justice centre for a number of offences, that you had committed while you were in custody. They included escape from a youth justice centre, one charge of carjacking, two charges of affray, two charges of assault with a weapon, and burglary.

23 Subsequently, you again came before the Melbourne Children's Court on 15 November 2017 in respect of a number of further offences, which you committed in custody. They included threatening to inflict serious injury, discharging a missile to cause injury or danger, sexual assault, recklessly causing injury, and unlawful assault. For those offences, you were ordered to be detained in a youth justice centre for a total effective term of thirteen months, part of which was directed to be served concurrently with other periods of detention which you were then serving. Ultimately, you were released, on parole, on 21 May 2018, less than nine weeks before you murdered Laa Chol.

24 Those previous convictions are relevant, for a number of purposes in the determination of your sentence. It is clear that your resort to violence, in the present case, was not an isolated incident out of character for you. Rather, it was an escalation of a pattern of offending, in which you had been involved, during the period of two years that preceded the offence. That consideration is relevant to an assessment of your subjective culpability. In addition, your previous convictions are also relevant to an assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation, and of the weight which needs to be placed on specific deterrence, that is, the need to impose a sentence which is of sufficient length to deter you from engaging in any further such acts of violence against another person.

25 Having outlined the circumstances of the offence and your previous convictions, I turn, then, to your personal background and circumstances.

26 You were born in Khartoum, Sudan. Your parents had six children, of whom you are the second youngest. When you were two years of age, your father died in the Sudanese Civil War.

27 Your family fled from Sudan to Egypt when you were three years of age. About one year later, in 2004, your family received humanitarian visas which permitted them to settle in Australia. Initially, your family lived in Coffs Harbour in New South Wales, where you attended the local kindergarten and primary school. When you were eight years of age, your family, and your mother's brother, moved to Melbourne. There your family lived in two different suburbs before they ultimately settled in Sunshine North. Your primary education was disrupted by your family's changes of residence, and you completed Grade 6 at Sunshine Primary School.

28 Your circumstances during those years were difficult. The household was unsettled and your family struggled financially. Your mother worked to support the family, and she was often not at home when you returned from school. Your three older brothers commenced to get into trouble with the law, and, in turn, each of them served terms of imprisonment. Your uncle, who lived with your family, had a drinking problem and at times he became aggressive. Subsequently, he suffered a serious head injury, which made him dependent on your family for his care and upkeep.

29 Having completed your primary education, you commenced secondary school at Braybrook College. However, your literacy and numeracy skills were deficient, and you struggled in class. You had difficulties concentrating, and you were subjected to racist taunts which you found quite distressing. During those times, you found it difficult to talk to your mother or anyone else about the issues that you were experiencing at school.

30 It was during that time, when you were 13 years of age, that you commenced to use cannabis once or twice a week in the company of friends. In 2016, when you were 14 years of age, and in Year 9, you were expelled from school, due to your non-attendance and your involvement in a serious fight in which another person was injured.

31 At that time, your life became quite aimless. You kept company with a group of children and young adults. None of them were working or attending school. A number of them were committing offences. While you continued to live with your mother, you spent the days and evenings in the company of those friends. During the same period, your drug use increased. You were using up to eight grams of cannabis each day. You also commenced to abuse Xanax, and also, on occasions, to use cocaine.

32 It was in that context that you commenced to get into trouble with the law. You committed the offences, that were the subject of the previous convictions which I have described. As a consequence of those convictions, you were in custody, initially in Parkville Youth Justice Centre for four months, and then for about eighteen months at the Malmsbury Youth Justice Detention Centre. You also spent some time in Barwon Prison after it had been gazetted as a youth detention facility. During that period, you received limited support from youth justice workers. You became involved in fights, which were often precipitated by derogatory and racist remarks that had been directed towards you. Because of your involvement in the fighting, and also due to the general disorder in the centre, you were kept in your cell in periods of lockdown. On other occasions, you were kept in your cell for longer than the prescribed time each day. When you were released from extended periods of lockdown, your mood was volatile and you tended to lose your temper easily.

33 During that period of custody, you attended school only on some days of the week, and you did not have any commitment to furthering your education. You were sleeping poorly and you were prescribed an anti-depressant medication.

34 After your release on parole on 21 May 2018, you lived with your mother, your two sisters, your brother and your uncle. You found that your mood was still volatile, and that you became readily angry and frustrated. While you were on parole, you were required to attend an appointment with a youth justice worker each week. However, your contact with the youth justice worker was quite limited.

35 Within a short time after being released from custody, you resumed abusing substances. You smoked about five to seven grams of cannabis each day, and abused Xanax. You also used cocaine at parties. You did make an attempt to play basketball, but after a short time, you stopped attending training. Your life became directionless and focused on your immediate needs. You spent most of your time with friends, a group of ten to fifteen adolescent boys between 17 and 22 years of age, few of whom had casual work, and most of whom were having trouble with the law.

36 During that period, the group, with whom you were associated, became involved in street robberies and other similar offences, some of which involved violence. At that time, your lifestyle was quite chaotic. You had little appetite and lost weight, your sleep was erratic, and you were drug affected for a lot of the time. It was in that context that you committed the murder of Laa Chol, for which you are now to be sentenced.

37 Since your arrest on 23 July 2018, you have been held on remand. You spent the first four months at the Parkville Youth Detention Centre, and you then moved to Malmsbury, where you have been detained for the last twelve months or so.

38 During this most recent period of detention, you have commenced to spend your time more productively, and to take some constructive steps on the path to reform. You have attended school five days per week, where you have been studying Year 10 in the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning stream. You have completed the Foundation VCAL Certificate, and have completed eight of the ten units of the Intermediate VCAL Certificate. As a result of your return to education, your literacy and numeracy skills have improved. The reports of the Parkville College have been quite positive. In particular, they have noted that you are a mature and respectful student in the classes, and have become a leader amongst your peers, setting a positive example to your classmates. You have applied yourself fully to your studies, and have been conscientious in attending to them. In addition, you attend the gymnasium each day after school, and you have also converted to Islam, which has helped you cope with your circumstances of being in detention.

39 In a character reference provided to the Court, Mr Tom Pearce, the transitions teacher of Parkville College, stated that you have shown maturity and leadership both in and outside the classroom. You encourage your fellow detainees to be respectful to teachers, and you have been a model of good behaviour and attitude in relation to your work. Mr Pearce has had a number of conversations with you, in which you have explored feelings of shame and remorse for your wrongdoings. Mr Pearce stated that although you have been involved in some serious and violent incidents during your time at Parkville and Malmsbury, they occurred in situations in which you have been highly distressed and provoked, and when you consider that you have not been shown the courtesy that you are due.

40 Ms Emily Hurley, the campus coordinator of Parkville College Flexible Learning Centre, also provided a character reference, and she gave evidence on your plea. Ms Hurley has known you for four years since she first met you when you entered Parkville Youth Justice Centre at the age of 15 years. During that time, she has perceived that, with appropriate care, support and meaningful connections, you are capable of seizing opportunities to grow, develop and better yourself. During your time at Parkville and Malmsbury, you have been nominated by a staff member to represent the unit, where you are housed, on the Youth Leadership Council. In that role, you have brought attention to the issues that affect your fellow detainees with the aim of improving their conditions in custody. You have also been an engaged and valued member of a peer mentoring group established by Ms Hurley. In her report and in her evidence, Ms Hurley has stated that since your return to custody in July 2018, you have talked openly to her about the shame, shock and distress that you feel about what you have done. You have told her that you deeply regret your actions, and that you feel sick at the thought of the pain that you have inflicted on Laa Chol's family and friends.

41 Thus, it is apparent that, since your return to custody, you have taken a number of encouraging and positive steps towards your reform.

42 On the other hand, it is a matter of concern that, during the same period, you have been involved in four separate incidents, in which you have committed acts of serious violence. As a result, you are subject to outstanding charges in relation to each of those incidents. The materials, that were put before me on your plea, indicate that, in at least three of the incidents, there was no evident provocation offered to you, and there was no apparent explanation as to why you became engaged in those acts of violence. I emphasise that, in determining your sentence in the present case, I do not take into account, by way of aggravation, your involvement in that further offending. However, those matters are relevant to an assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation. They indicate that you have struggled to achieve appropriate insight concerning your propensity to resort to acts of violence in resolving conflicts and other situations with which you are confronted.

43 In her reference, and in evidence before me, Ms Hurley proffered an explanation as to the underlying causes of the problems that you have experienced while in custody. During your previous, and present, periods of detention, you have been subjected to very lengthy periods of lockdown and periods of isolation. The circumstances and manner in which you have been confined, during those periods, have been particularly oppressive and inappropriate for a person of your years. Ms Hurley expressed the view that that type of disposition, for a person such as yourself, has been an ineffective and counter-productive means of managing the behavioural problems which you have. She has observed that your behaviour and state of mind deteriorate when you are subjected to extended periods of separation and lockdown.

44 In considering Ms Hurley's evidence, I acknowledge that I have not had the opportunity to hear evidence from those who were responsible for your detention, and who might give some explanation for the circumstances in which you have been held in detention. With that caveat in mind, nevertheless I found Ms Hurley to be an impressive witness, who, over the last four years, has become well acquainted with your personality structure, and who has a real insight into your behavioural difficulties. While the explanation given by her does assist in understanding the circumstances in which you have become involved in further violent incidents, nevertheless it is a matter of concern, from the point of view of your future rehabilitation, that you are, and have remained, prone to resorting to gratuitous acts of violence in order to give vent to your feelings of frustration and anger.

45 Mr Guy Coffey, a clinical psychologist, interviewed you on three occasions in November at the request of your solicitors, and he has provided a detailed and comprehensive report in respect of his examination of you. Mr Coffey observed that the circumstances of your early life were not positive for your future psychological wellbeing. In particular, he noted that you were the second youngest of six children in a single parent refugee family, who struggled scholastically at school, and suffered from racism. Further, some aspects of your first period of youth detention did not assist you in being rehabilitated into the community.

46 Mr Coffey considered that, at the time of the offence, you were not suffering from a mental illness or any cognitive impairment. When you committed the offence, you were addicted to cannabis and Xanax, but, plainly, that is not a mitigating factor. Mr Coffey considered that your consumption of those substances might have caused a mild to moderate degree of disinhibition. However, you were aware of what you were doing. You were capable of understanding the consequences of your actions, and you had the ability to choose to resolve the situation, in which you had become embroiled, without resorting to violence.

47 Mr Coffey noted that you regarded your resort to the use of a knife as being quite inexplicable, which it was. He also noted, however, that you have routinely resorted to violence to resolve conflict throughout the years of your adolescence. On a more positive note, you expressed some remorse for your actions when speaking to Mr Coffey. However, that remorse was described by him as being a feeling that was emerging, and that was not persuasive in detail.

48 In respect of your prospects of rehabilitation, Mr Coffey considers that you require psychological treatment to address unmet developmental needs, including your sense of identity as a Sudanese Australian, your capacity for emotional regulation, and your ability to cope with stressors. Your substance abuse needs to be addressed through specialised counselling. In addition, you require psychological interventions that target your attitude towards, and your resort to, violence and offending, and which enables you to feel genuine empathy for your victims, and an appreciation of the fact that other people also have rights. Mr Coffey noted that, in light of your youth and your background, you have shown a propensity to be influenced by peers who have criminal attitudes, and that you are at risk of identifying with the criminal attitudes and lifestyle of older prisoners while in adult prison.

49 It can be seen, then, that there are a number of mitigating factors that are required to be taken into account in the determination of your sentence. First and foremost, are the circumstances of your childhood and early adolescence. Your difficult experiences during that important stage of your life, none of which were of your making, all played a relevant role in shaping your personality and your responses. As a result, your culpability - that is, the level of your moral guilt - for the offending, in which you engaged, could not be equated with that of a person who had had the advantage of a normal, stable and regular home environment and upbringing. As the High Court, and the Court of Appeal of this State, have recognised, such a consideration is a relevant mitigating circumstance in the assessment of the degree of your culpability for the offending in which you engaged.

50 An additional mitigating factor is your young age. At the time of the offence, you were 17 years of age, and you are now 18 years and 5 months old.

51 Ordinarily, and in particular in cases involving less serious offending, the law considers that the youth of an offender is an important, and at times pre-eminent, mitigating factor. An offender's youth may have had an effect on his or her offending, by reason of the offender's immaturity. In addition, the law regards the rehabilitation of young offenders to be in the best interests of society, so that priority is to be given to a sentencing disposition that places greater emphasis on rehabilitation.

52 However, in your case, such considerations are given significantly less weight. The kind of violent offence, in which you engaged, is regrettably all too commonly committed by offenders of a young age. It is well established that as the level of seriousness of the offending increases, there will be a corresponding reduction in the weight which is to be given to an offender's youth by way of mitigation. In the present case, in light of the serious crime that you committed, and the circumstances in which you committed it, the weight to be given to your young age must be substantially moderated. Nevertheless, your youth, at the time of the commission of the offence, and at the time of sentence, is a relevant mitigating factor.

53 As I have mentioned, at your trial, you pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter. Before the committal mention proceeding, you had, through your legal advisers, offered to the prosecution a plea of guilty to manslaughter. At the committal proceeding, you pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter. Throughout the preliminary stages of the proceeding, and in the trial, the sole issue was whether the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, at the time at which you stabbed Laa Chol, you intended to cause her really serious injury. As a result, the amount of evidence, that was required to be called at the trial, was limited. Thus, the attitude taken by you, in respect of accepting your guilt for the homicide of Laa Chol, had a material utilitarian value. It also had the effect of reducing the trauma to Laa Chol's family and friends as the issues that were agitated at the trial were substantially confined.

54 As I have mentioned, both Mr Coffey and Ms Hurley consider that you have, in one form or another, expressed a degree of remorse for your murder of Laa Chol. On your plea, a handwritten letter of apology, prepared by you, was tendered on your behalf.

55 It is ordinarily difficult to assess whether an expression of remorse by an offender is genuine. In that respect, I consider that Mr Coffey was in the best position to express an opinion in that regard. As I have noted, he has described your remorse as genuine, but at this stage it is quite limited and ill-formed. To that limited extent, I take into account, as a mitigating factor, that you have, at least, managed to experience and express a degree of remorse.

56 It is clear, from your previous criminal convictions, and your subsequent offending, and also from the report of Mr Coffey, that your prospects of rehabilitation, at this point, must be assessed as being quite problematic. You have a real problem with controlling your feelings, and with addressing and resolving your all too ready propensity to resort to serious acts of violence to deal with any situation in which you become involved. It is most important that, during your term of imprisonment, you undergo the therapy and treatment recommended by Mr Coffey. It is particularly desirable, and indeed of importance, that that rehabilitative treatment be available to you from an early stage during the term of the sentence which I am to impose on you.

57 Those, then, are the mitigating factors which are to be taken into account in your favour. On the other hand, as I have already discussed, the offence that you have committed is a most serious offence, and in the present case, there were a number of factors, which I have described, and which aggravated the gravity of your offending.

58 The principles, which apply to the determination of your sentence, are well established. It is necessary that the sentence, which I impose upon you, be such as to adequately express the condemnation by this Court, and by the community, of your crime, and to vindicate the sanctity of each human life, which is the most precious value in our society. In addition, the sentence, which I am to impose upon you, must be of sufficient severity to serve as a general deterrent to others, by constituting a clear message to any person, who might be minded to engage in the kind of violence indulged in by you in this case, that such conduct will be met with the most severe of sentences, involving the deprivation of the offender's right to be at liberty for a long period of time.

59 Further, it is important that the sentence, which I impose on you, is sufficient to ensure that you yourself are personally deterred from further acts of violence, and to instil into you some understanding of, and insight into, the most serious nature of the crime which you committed. As a related matter, it is also necessary that the sentence be such as to provide a measure of protection to the community from your proclivity to resort to serious acts of violence so readily.

60 In determining the sentence that I am to impose on you, I have had regard to current sentencing practices. In that respect, I have been assisted by the sentencing decisions to which both the prosecutor, Ms Churchill, and your counsel, Mr Norton, referred me. It is important to bear in mind that no two cases are alike, either in terms of the nature of the offending, or in respect of the circumstances of the particular offender. Nevertheless, the decisions to which I have been referred have, in a broad sense, assisted to indicate the current sentencing practices that are relevant to your sentence. As the High Court has recently emphasised, the current sentencing practices are but one factor out of many which are relevant to the determination of your sentence.

61 As I indicated at the commencement of these reasons, the determination of the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon you has not been a simple task. I must, on the one hand, take into account the seriousness of the crime that you have committed, and the need to give appropriate weight to the sentencing objectives of general deterrence, denunciation, specific deterrence and protection of the community. On the other hand, it is also necessary to take into account, and give proper weight to, the mitigating circumstances to which I have referred.

62 In respect of the non-parole period that I will set for you, it is important that you understand that, at the completion of that period, you will not be automatically released on parole. Rather, at the end of that period, you will be eligible to apply for, and, if considered appropriate, be granted, release on parole. I would expect that, in considering whether you are to be granted parole, the Parole Board will give careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of your offending, to your previous convictions, and also, importantly, to your progress and behaviour during your term of imprisonment. In that respect, it is important that you continue the positive steps that you have taken, so far, in respect of your education and future career. Equally, it is most important that you learn to resolve situations in which you find yourself without resorting to needless acts of violence.

63 Taking those matters into account, I sentence you as follows. For the murder of Laa Chol, I sentence you to 20 years' imprisonment. I fix a minimum non-parole period of 15 years. Pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that 515 days (not including today's date) be reckoned as served under this sentence, and I shall cause a declaration to that effect to be noted in the records of the Court.

64 In addition I make the disposal order proposed by the prosecution and not opposed by your counsel.

[1] Pseudonyms have been used as AK, PM and MM were under the age of 18 years at the time of the offence.