DPP v Donohue [2018] VCC 1578

1. On 6 June 1985, Melbourne Magistrates' Court you were dealt for

20 charges of forging documents, 20 charges of altering documents and

18 charges of imposition. You were fined $20 on each of those charges and ordered to pay reparations in the sum of $1169.70.

2. On 7 April 1998, at the Melbourne County Court you were charged with three charges of defrauding the Commonwealth and you were convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment released immediately on a recognisance release order for a period of four years. You were ordered to pay $68,790.52 reparation on that occasion.

3. On 27 April 2007, at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court. You were dealt with for 11 charges of obtain financial advantage by deception and fined a total of $2500.

4. On 19 January 2009 at Ringwood Magistrates' Court, you were dealt with for obtaining property by deception. You were placed on a community based order for 12 months and ordered to perform 75 hours of unpaid work.

1. The offending in Charge 1 of this indictment occurred just seven months after the completion of your community based order for dishonesty offending, a disposition at Ringwood in January 2009.
2. Your criminal history is for dishonesty offending which has persisted over some 30 years. The offences for which you are to be sentenced here have their basis in your dishonesty but your offending is directed against the integrity of the legal system set up to protect the community.

1. You were originally charged with these offences in November 2015. There were a number of procedural hearings and then the first trial was listed for 17 October 2016. You were to represent yourself at this trial as your previous legal representative ceased to act. There were a further set of procedural hearings relating to the Legal Aid funding. The second trial was commenced before me on 17 July 2017. On the second day of that trial a jury member said she could not continue and the jury was discharged without verdict.
2. The third trial was listed on 28 August 2017. The jury was empanelled, evidence was given on the trial on 28, 29 and 30 August 2017. On 30 August 2017, I was advised for the first time that documents or material that was vital to your defence were on the computers that were seized by the police and the police still retained those computers. You needed access to the computer to properly conduct your defence. Despite this being a "late in the day" matter, I discharged the jury without verdict.
3. A series of further procedural hearings were conducted to facilitate access to your computer records by both you and experts appointed by you. In the end result no further documents were relied upon by you in your trial, which commenced on 3 September 2018.
4. I have outlined a summary of the case history to shed some light on, or explanation, for the delay in time between when you were charged in November 2015 and 10 September 2018 when you were convicted. Mr Kenny of counsel conceded on your behalf that the delay is not a factor that is relied upon to mitigate your sentence in these charges. Such a concession is properly made because your actions have been the main cause of that delay.
5. In the period of time between your offending in relation to these charges you have served a total of four months' imprisonment for the offending which were the court hearing dates you were seeking to adjourn indefinitely. You have no other matters outstanding.

1. In April 2010, you were charged by informant, Mr Bronstein with dishonesty offences. In July 2010, these charges were listed at the Ringwood Magistrates' Court. On the day of the listing the charges were adjourned for a plea of guilty on 27 August 2010.
2. On or about 8 July 2010, you prepared a false document that day dated 8 July 2010, addressed to the presiding magistrate at the Ringwood Magistrates' Court purporting to be from Dr Bill Davis of the WBRC. The letter indicated that you were a patient since 2004 and that you were being treated for an inoperable malignant brain tumour. The letter stated that it was anticipated you would need to be treated for several more years. That was Exhibit "B" in the trial.
3. On 12 July 2010, you prepared a document dated 12 July 2010 addressed to the presiding magistrate at Ringwood Magistrates' Court purporting it be from Dr Rodney Farnbach, who is a consultant psychiatrist. Dr Farnbach had previously treated you many years before.
4. The letter indicated that you were suffering from ongoing psychiatric issues including post-traumatic stress disorder over the last 24 years. It stated that your prognosis was that you were unlikely to recover from PTSD and would require regular treatment for the rest of your life. That was Exhibit "C" on the trial.
5. On 27 August 2010, you case was further adjourned until 13 September 2010 to obtain reports in respect of your sentencing. On 10 September 2010, the charges were further adjourned to 4 October 2010 for sentence.
6. On 6 September 2010, you prepared a document dated 6 September 2010 addressed to the presiding magistrate at Ringwood Magistrates' Court purporting to be, again, from Dr Rodney Farnbach, consultant psychiatrist. The letter said it was further to his letter dated 12 July 2010, and indicated that you were suffering from ongoing psychiatric issues including post-traumatic stress disorder and opined that the custodial environment would be extremely counteractive to your treatment and would pose a severe risk of suicide. It stated that it was extremely unlikely that you would re-offended. That was Exhibit "D".
7. On about 1 October 2010, you prepared a document addressed to "Whom it may concern", it purported to be, again, from Dr Bill Davis of the WBRC.

The letter indicated that you were admitted to hospital on 4 October 2010, and that you were required to stay in hospital for about a week and would be unable to resume your normal activities for some four weeks. That was Exhibit "E" on the trial.

8. On 4 October 2010, you did not appear at court and a warrant was issued.

The warrant was executed on 28 October 2010 and you were to appear on 20 December 2010.

9. On 15 December 2010, you prepared a document addressed to the coordinator's office at Ringwood Magistrates' Court purporting to be from Dr Bill Davis of the WBRC. The letter stated it was regarding the hearing for 20 December 2010. The letter indicated that you were required to be admitted to hospital for surgery on 19 December 2010, and would be unable to resume your normal activities for a period of six weeks. That was Exhibit "F".
10. The letters from Dr Bill Davis and from Dr Farnbach were false and you admit to making and producing these documents to the court on the days alleged. The contents in relation to your health status are also false. The five letters referred to in Charges 1-5 were sent to the Ringwood court for the purpose of misleading the court as to the true status of your health and to avoid the final resolution of what were known as the Bronstein charges. That is the basis for Charge 6, attempting to pervert the course of justice.
11. The charges were adjourned from 20 December 2010 until 7 February 2011. You then embarked upon a second phase of false documents to avoid the finalisation of the Bronstein charges. On 3 February 2011, you prepared a false document incorrectly dated 3 February 2010, it was supposed to be 2011, addressed to the presiding magistrate at the Ringwood Magistrates' Court purporting again to be from Dr Bill Davis of the WBRC. The letter indicated that you were admitted to hospital on 2 February 2011 and after surgery on

4 February 2011, you would have to stay in hospital for an indefinite period. That was Exhibit "G" on the trial.

12. These charges were adjourned from 7 February 2011 to 7 April 2011. On 7 April 2011, you did not appear. A warrant was issued and then executed and a new date of 6 June 2011 was fixed for the hearing.
13. On 31 May 2011, you prepared a document dated 31 May 2011, addressed to the Ringwood Magistrates' Court purporting to be Dr Bill Davis of the WBRC. The letter indicated that you were currently an inpatient and would remain in hospital for two weeks. Consequently you would be unable to make your court appearances on 2 and 6 June 2011. That was Exhibit "H" on the trial.
14. On 6 June 2011, the case was adjourned until 8 August 2011.
15. On or about 5 August 2011, you prepared a document dated 5 August 2011, addressed to the Ringwood Magistrates' Court purported to be, again, from Dr Bill Davis of the WBRC. The letter indicated that you were currently an inpatient and would remain in hospital for two to three weeks. Consequently you would be unable to make your court appearances on 8 and 11 August 2011. It stated that your condition was terminal and that your cancer treatments were based on improving your quality of life rather than a cure. It also stated that the hospital would send the court a death certificate when that occurred. That was Exhibit "J" on the trial.
16. On 8 August 2011, your case was adjourned to 22 November 2011.
17. On 25 October 2011, you prepared a document dated 25 October 2011, to the Ringwood Magistrates' Court again purporting to be from Dr Bill Davis of the WBRC. The letter indicated that you had entered palliative care and will be in that care until your death. The letter stated that the hospital would send the court the death certificate when it occurred. That was Exhibit "K" on the trial.
18. On 22 November 2011, a letter was provided to the Ringwood Magistrates' Court in support of you for the hearing of 22 November 2011. The hearing was then adjourned until 2 March 2012.
19. On 27 February 2012, you prepared a document dated 27 February 2012, addressed to the Ringwood Magistrates' Court purporting to be, again, from Dr Bill Davis of the WBRC. The letter indicated that you had entered palliative care and would be there until your death. Consequently you were unable to attend the court hearing. That was Exhibit "L" on the trial.
20. On 2 March 2012, a letter was provided to the Ringwood Magistrates' Court. You were not present and the hearing and was adjourned sine die.

1. The five letters relating to Charges 7-11 were provided to the court for the purpose of misleading the court as to your current health and avoiding the resolution of the charges. That was Charge 12, attempt to pervert the course of justice.
2. As at March 2012, the Bronstein charges were adjourned indefinitely. You came to the attention of Sergeant Phillips for further offending. As a result of his enquiries about you he discovered the status of the Bronstein matters. Sergeant Phillips then contacted Mr Bronstein and you were served with a notice of intention to proceed on 11 May 2013, and the case was listed for

3. You returned to your practice of preparing documents in the name of Dr Bill Davis. On 30 May 2013, you prepared a document dated 30 May 2013, addressed to the Ringwood Magistrates' Court purporting to be from Dr Bill Davis of the WBRC. The letter indicated that you were currently an inpatient for the next three to four weeks and as a consequence would not be able to attend your court hearing on 3 June 2013. It was noted that your condition was terminal. That was Exhibit "M" on the trial. On 3 June 2011, that letter was presented to the Ringwood Magistrates' Court and the hearing was adjourned.
4. On 30 December 2013, you prepared a document dated 30 December 2013, purporting to be from Dr Bill Davis of the WBRC. The letter indicated that you were a long term patient and will be required to stay in hospital for the next three to four weeks. Consequently you could not attend your court hearing on

15 January 2014. The letter stated that you were in palliative care and you would be in that care until your death. It further states that they would forward the death certificate to the court when it occurred. That was Exhibit "N".

5. On 6 January 2014, the above letter was provided to the court and the case was adjourned until 17 February 2014 for the police to make enquiries.

1. The two letters which were the basis of Charges 13 and 14 were provided to the court for the purpose of misleading the court as to your current health and avoiding the resolution of the charges before the court. That was for Charge 15, the attempt to pervert the course of justice.
2. On 20 August 2014, you were interviewed about the false medical documents and denied seeing them. You stated that those medical documents would have been obtained and sent by the Defence Signals Directorate. You said you had these medical conditions but were treated under another name because of your security work with the Defence Signals Directorate.
3. Your computer was seized by police and examined by the E-Crime division. Copies of the medical reports were located on your computer. You admit that you prepared each of the documents in the names of Dr Bill Davis and Dr Farnbach. In your evidence you stated that the conditions and treatment set out in those letters were true but you could not reveal your treating doctors or the name you were treated under for national security reasons. The jury rejected that evidence. I reject that evidence and find that your dishonesty is the basis of those offences.
4. Once the police had interviewed you for the false medical reports and your use of them to avoid the finalisation of your court matters you changed your approach. You continued your campaign to avoid finalising the court hearings now involving Bronstein and the Phillips charges.
5. Charges 16-19 are the relevant charges to the next phase of your offending. These are the perjury charges.
6. On 26 September 2014, you attended at the Ringwood Magistrates' Court and signed a statutory declaration knowingly falsely swearing that you were required for urgent military duty and consequently you were unable to attend the court hearing on 29 September 2014. That was Exhibit "V" on the trial.
7. On 24 October 2014, you then attended at the Ringwood Magistrates' Court and signed a statutory declaration knowingly falsely swearing that you were required for urgent military duty and consequently were unable to attend the court hearing on 27 October 2014. That was Exhibit "W".
8. On 21 May 2015, you then attended at the Ringwood Magistrates' Court and signed a statutory declaration knowingly falsely swearing that you were required for special military duty and consequently were unable to attend the court hearing on 25 May 2015. You further stated that you had been advised to request a closed court hearing due to the need to present information under the official secrets provisions of the Crimes Act and the Defence Act. That was Exhibit "X".
9. The final charge of perjury was on 12 November 2015. You attended at the Knox police station and signed a statutory declaration knowingly falsely stating that you were required on interstate federal government duty and consequently you were unable to attend your court hearing on 16 November 2015.
10. You have not been involved in any military duty, special military duty or federal government duty in any of the period of September 2014 to November 2015. In fact military records show that you enlisted in the Australian Army in 1970 and were discharged in 1976. The records show that you had not served in the Army or the Army Reserve since your discharge in 1976.
11. The evidence in this case is that on 29 September 2014 to 27 October 2014 you were at work in Melbourne. Your employer was not affiliated with any federal government agencies.
12. Investigations revealed, and the evidence was, that on 16 November 2015, you were in Hobart for the purposes of work training with a private company known as Megavar Pty Ltd. You had accepted the job with them on 21 October 2015, and you were to start work on 16 November 2015. You had flown down to Hobart on 16 November 2015, for a week's training however at your request you were dropped at the airport the following day. Again Megavar Pty Ltd was not affiliated with any government agency.
13. A search of the Defence Force security clearance records show there was no-one with the name of Neville McBryde Donohue or similar or ever having a security clearance for such security work with the federal government.
14. A requirement of all Australian Signals Directorate (formerly the Defence Signals Directorate) personnel is indoctrination and de-indoctrination. A search of the database of the Australian Signals Directorate indoctrination records from 1947 to the present day have shown no record of you working for, being posted to, or attached to the Australian Signals Directorate. A search of what was known as the Trim database, which covers all personnel across Australian government agencies including but not limited to other intelligence agencies shows no records relating to or referencing to yourself.

A further search of the Mandolin security database shows no record relating to you.

15. You formally admitted swearing each of these statutory declarations.

Your evidence is that you were acting on behalf of the federal government in secret special military or intelligence duty is a fiction created by you so that all the court matters for the Bronstein and Phillips matters would not be finalised.

16. You had no onus of proof in these charges. The jury clearly rejected your evidence. I reject your evidence. I accept the evidence of all the witnesses called in the prosecution case in relation to the charges against you.
17. Your offending was persistent over a long period of time. You continued with your offending even after you knew you had been caught out in relation to the false medical letters. It is brazen offending that you thought you would not be detected because offending of this nature is hard to detect and even harder to prosecute.

1. You are 66 years old. At the time of your offending in these matters you were 57-62 years' old. You are in receipt of the disability pension and a carer's allowance.
2. You were born in Seymour, you were raised in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Your father died when you were two years old. You were raised, in effect, by your maternal grandparents. Your mother entered many relationships and you have a number of step-siblings. You have a limited and strained relationship with your mother, who is still alive.
3. You completed your education to Year 12 level at Northcote High School. After you left school you joined the Australian Army. You remained in the Army for six years' service and were discharged in 1976.
4. You are married to Judith. You have three children of your family; Anthony who as I understand it is really your stepson but you treat as your son; Brett and Christopher, who is your sons. Your son, Christopher, suffers from Down Syndrome and requires care and supervision. Christopher attends a centre daily and lives with you and your wife in a rented premises. Your wife suffers from epilepsy, asthma and diabetes which are medically controlled. Your wife has had spinal surgery in 2015 and has reduced mobility and suffers from pain.
5. The family has receipt of three pensions, disability pension for yourself, aged pension for your wife and a disability pension for your son, Christopher. There is also an allowance for rental assistance. Your wife gave evidence on your plea. She impressed me as a person of considerable resilience and determination to do her best to look after your son whilst you are absent in prison. Your wife acknowledged it would be more difficult to look after Christopher without your assistance but was going to manage it nonetheless.

1. Since your discharge from the Army in 1976, you have had numerous jobs generally in management and business development field. Mr Kenny said you had approximately 20 jobs in that 40 year period.
2. You have served a total of four months' imprisonment for the Bronstein and Phillips matters dealt with in the Magistrates' Court. You abandoned your appeal in this court in front of Judge Chettle.
3. In effect your last offending was in November 2015. You have not offended since then. Your court appearances since that time, numerous as they are, have to do with offending prior to November 2015. The delay in resolving all of these matters has been caused by your approach to various cases and not caused by the prosecution.
4. The following reports were tendered on your behalf on the plea;
   • Exhibit "1", was the report from Carla Lechner dated 12 December 2016.
   • Exhibit "2", was the report of Carla Lechner dated 5 July 2017.
   • Exhibit "3", was a report of Judy Tomlinson dated 6 May 2016 and
   • Exhibit "4", was a Forensicare report dated 7 March 2018.
5. Ms Lechner has assessed you as having ongoing symptoms of PTSD. In her second report she describes your symptoms as mild. Ms Tomlinson's report is over two years' old. At that time she diagnosed you as suffering from PTSD and major depression. The most recent report was prepared by Forensicare on the order of Judge Chettle.
6. Dr Hemlata Ranga, psychiatrist, assessed you as suffering from chronic PTSD with ongoing residual symptoms. Dr Ranga noted you coped well with your previous periods of incarceration. Dr Ranga's opinion is based on your history to him.
7. It is noted in Dr Ranga's report as follows:

"On medical state examination there was no evidence suggestive of any acute, severe symptoms suggestive of psychosis or schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar affective disorder or any major neurological disorder or neuro-cognitive deficits. There was no active evidence of severe PTSD either. His attention was easily arousable and his concentration was good for long periods of time. He had good recall of all the timeline of events and history was consistent on both occasions. He was oriented in time, place and person. He denied any history or current thought of self-harm or risk of suicide".

1. As I have stated before you have a criminal history of dishonesty. The current offences are based on dishonesty. The diagnosis set out in the above reports are based on your report to each of the authors. It is on the basis of your history to them they have made those diagnoses.
2. I note the reference from Belinda James, who was from the Interchange Outer East. She attests to your involvement and commitment to that not for profit organisation which had been attended by your son, Christopher, for over a period of 23 years.

1. The basic purpose for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, deterrence both specific and general, rehabilitation and denunciation of your actions and the protection of the community. In sentencing you I must have regard to a range of factors such as the seriousness of your offending, your culpability for it and your personal circumstances.
2. I am also required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing your criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure, as far as possible, that you as an offender are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
3. I am also required to take into account current sentencing practices in fixing your sentence. That enquiry is directed particularly but not exclusively to the kinds of sentences imposed in comparable cases and the statistics for those cases. I have considered the statistics and current sentencing practices mindful that each case must be considered in the light of its own particular circumstances and many of the cases would be distinguishable from your case as indeed they are from one another. That is but one of the considerations

4. You have conducted a trial, which is your right. As your counsel submitted you are not to be punished for exercising your right to conduct that trial.
5. In the course of the plea your wife, Judith, gave evidence about the difficulties both she and your son, Christopher, will face if you are incarcerated in prison.

The evidence reveals that your pension would no longer be available to fund the household. Mrs Donohue stated she would need physical assistance with the upkeep of the rented premises that the family currently occupies.

6. Your son, Christopher, who suffers from Down Syndrome attends a family day care or a day care centre. None of the people in your household drive vehicles and you rely on taxis for transport. When you are liberty you provide nothing in the way of transport for your family.
7. On a proper assessment there is no level of "exceptional circumstances" which require this court to exercise mercy in your case. I have no doubt there will be an increased hardship on your wife and your son, Christopher, by virtue of your imprisonment. Your criminality has caused that result.
8. You have prior court appearances for dishonesty offences. Your dishonest offending has extended over three decades. You have not served a term of imprisonment for your prior court appearances. I do note, however, that you have served a total of four months' imprisonment since you were charged with these offences.
9. The crime of perjury is a very serious one. In your case you have been found guilty by the jury of four charges of perjury over the period September 2014 to November 2015. Your charges of perjury were committed in a curial proceeding and strikes at the very heart of the administration of justice. It is trite to say that public confidence in the administration of justice is vital to the welfare of society. Each of your perjury charges arises from the false declarations made by you to gain an adjournment of your court cases. Your actions directly attack the administration of justice.
10. A salient indicator of the seriousness of these charges of perjury is that you started this method of obtaining adjournment after you were interviewed for using false medical certificates and letters to obtain adjournment for the same set of court cases. This factor goes to your persistence and brazen nature of your offending in these charges of perjury in an attempt to further delay the finalisation of the charges brought by Bronstein and Phillips.
11. The charges of making false documents each have a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment. These charges become the basis of the three charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. There is a degree of overlap in these charges in the sense that Charges 1-5 are the basis for Charge 6. Charges 7-11 are the basis for Charge 12. Charges 13 and 14 are the basis for Charge 15. The false document charges commencing July 2010 and continue until December 2013. The whole of this offending is committed in the curial setting of court proceedings. These offences attack the administration of justice at its core. It was consistent, persistent and blatant criminality on your part.
12. Your criminality in the whole of the 19 charges on this indictment can be appropriately divided into two main parts. The offending prior to your interview by police about the false medical reports is the first part. The second part is the change in your offending after the police interview to embark on the four charges of perjury on four discrete occasions. The total number of charges brings into consideration, of course, the issue of totality.

1. In the case of DPP v Hadara [2013] VSCA 149 Harper JA stated as follows:

"When sentences are imposed on numerous offences the sentencing judge should stand back and look at the overall picture and decide whether the total of what would be otherwise be an appropriate sentence is a fair and reasonable total sentence to impose".

1. This is an aspect of the totality principle which as the High Court said in Miller v R, is a recognised principle of sentencing formulated to assist a court when sentencing an offender for a number of offences". It is described succinctly in Thomas' Principles of Sentencing as follows, and I am quoting His Honour:

"The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentencer who has passed a series of sentences, each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive in accordance with the principles governing consecutive sentences, to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate is just and appropriate. The principle has been stated many times in various forms. When a number of offences have been dealt with and specific punishment in respect of them are to be toted up to make a total, it is always necessary for the court to take a last look at the total just to see whether it looks wrong. When cases of multiplicity come before the court the court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic and passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behaviour and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all the offences".

1. The principle has a wider application than the case specifies in the passage quoted above. As Thomas in his Principles of Sentencing points out:

"The principle applies to all situations in which an offender may become subject to more than one sentence where sentences are passed on different counts in an indictment or on different indictments, whether the offender is subject to suspended sentences or probation order or where he is already serving a sentence of imprisonment and makes appearances in different courts within a short space of time. In all such cases the final duty of the sentencer is to make sure the totality of the consecutive sentences is not excessive".

"The courts have, for these reasons, shown an aversion to the imposition of crushing sentences except where these are either required by statue or are an exceptional circumstances otherwise plainly justified".

1. I accept that you will find imprisonment more difficult due to your post-traumatic stress disorder and combined with the knowledge that your family is suffering hardship. A hardship that you have imposed upon them. I note also that you reported that you coped well with your last imprisonment to Dr Ranga.
2. I consider your prospects of rehabilitation as guarded. You have shown no remorse for your offending in these charges. You have, over a long period of time, committed dishonesty offences. On your current history your criminal habits will be hard for you to break or control.
3. Consideration of general and specific deterrence, denunciation or your criminal conduct and just punishment requires a significant term of imprisonment to be ordered.
4. Would you stand, please?
5. In respect of Charge 1, make false document, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.

In respect of Charge 2, make false document, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.

In respect of Charge 3, make false document, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.

In respect of Charge 4, make false document, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.

In respect of Charge 5, make false document, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.

1. On Charge 6, attempting to pervert the course of justice, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
2. On Charge 7, making false document, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
3. On Charge 8, making a false document, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' important.
4. On Charge 9 you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. On Charge 10, make false document, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
5. On Charge 11, make false document, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
6. On Charge 12, attempting to pervert the course of justice, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
7. On Charge 13, make false document, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
8. On Charge 14, make false document, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
9. On Charge 15, attempting to pervert the course of justice, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
10. On Charge 16, the charge of perjury, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. That is the base sentence.
11. On Charge 17, perjury, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
12. On Charge 18 you are convicted and sentenced, a charge of perjury, for two years' imprisonment.
13. On Charge 19, a charge of perjury, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
14. The cumulation is as follows. As I said, Charge 16 is the base sentence which is two years' imprisonment. Cumulated upon that sentence and on each other are the following, 12 months of the sentence in Charge 6. Four months of the sentence in Charge 12. Four months of the sentence in Charge 15. Three months of the sentence in Charge 17. Three months in the sentence of Charge 18 and three months in the sentence of Charge 19.
15. That is a total effective sentence of 53 months imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 33 months. I declare that you have served - I want to check this is the right date, 15 days pre-sentence detention.
16. MR SIM: Yes, Your Honour.
17. HIS HONOUR: Fifteen days pre-sentence detention and I am yet to hear from Mr Kenny and I will give him a chance to address me on 464ZF.
18. MR KENNY: I have no submissions about that, Your Honour.
19. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Further, I make an order under s.464ZF of the Crimes Act which is that you are to provide a forensic sample to the authorities. You have this done by taking a scraping from your mouth or a blood sample if that is appropriate. The prison authorities are authorised to use reasonable force to obtain that sample if they need to. Do you understand what I just said to you?
20. OFFENDER: (Indistinct).
21. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. The reason I am making the order is because of the seriousness of your offending, the order is not opposed and it is in the public interest that it is granted. I will sign that order. Has someone checked my arithmetic down there?
22. MR KENNY: Yes, Your Honour.
23. MR SIM: My instructor has, Your Honour, I think it's all fine.
24. HIS HONOUR: Thanks. You can remove
25. MR SIM: The only issue is the 6AAA.
26. HIS HONOUR: No, no need because he's pleaded not guilty.
27. MR SIM: Sorry.
28. HIS HONOUR: He had a trial.
29. MR SIM: Of course.
30. HIS HONOUR: Thanks very much, you can remove the prisoner. Again I thank counsel for their assistance through the whole process here.