DPP v Hills [2011] VSC 238

2 Those offences were committed by you in company with Karen Hills, NKC, Brodie Cooper, RAC and Kylie Meulenbrock. In April 2010, Kylie Meulenbrock pleaded guilty to two charges arising out of her participation in the events of 9 December 2008. The trial of the other co-accused took place in the latter half of last year. You were then unfit to stand trial. At that trial, the jury convicted each of your co-accused of offences arising out of their participation in the events on 9 December 2008.

3 At the time of the offences, you were 43 years of age. Karen Hills, your sister, was then 38 years of age. NKC, your nephew, was 15 years of age. Brodie Cooper was 18 years old, and RAC was 15 years of age.

4 It appears that the motive for your involvement in the offences arose out of an incident in June 2007, in which a man called Beau McMahon had stabbed you in the chest. As a result of that incident, you suffered very serious injuries. McMahon was charged with the attempted murder of you. However, his trial for that offence had to be discontinued, because, at the time of the trial, you were not in a fit state to give evidence on behalf of the Crown. Those events were relevant to your offending in the present case, because, on the evening of the offences, you were anxious to ascertain the whereabouts of Leah Freeman's son Shannon, who, you believed, might know something about the attempted murder of you. In addition, there was evidence of some existing hostility between Karen Hills and Leah Freeman.

5 On the evening of 9 December 2008, your co-offenders and you drove in two vehicles to East Brunswick. It appears that you were also accompanied by a third vehicle, which contained two males. However, there is no evidence as to the identities of those two persons. The three vehicles parked in Donald Street, East Brunswick, which was around the corner from Ms Freeman's home at 13 Clara Street. You and your co-offenders then walked to Ms Freeman's house. You knocked on the door. Ms Freeman was then home alone. When she opened the door, you forced your way in, and were followed inside by your five co-offenders.

6 Having made your entry, you demanded of Ms Freeman "where are they", referring to her children, and in particular to Shannon. After searching her house, you physically assaulted Leah Freeman, with the assistance of your co-offenders. You told Ms Freeman that she was going to be placed in the boot of a car. A struggle ensued, in which she was overpowered by you. With the assistance of Brodie Cooper, RAC and NKC, you forcefully abducted Leah Freeman from her home, notwithstanding her protestations and struggles. You and Brodie Cooper carried Ms Freeman towards Donald Street, and then forced her to walk along that street. She was then placed into the boot of Ms Meulenbrock's vehicle. Throughout that ordeal, Ms Freeman resisted her abduction, and resisted being forced into the boot of the vehicle. However, she was overpowered, and the boot of the vehicle was closed. At some stage before she was placed in the boot of the vehicle, Brodie Cooper had punched her to the face.

7 After Ms Freeman was forced into the boot of Meulenbrock's vehicle, you and your co-offenders drove your vehicles to East Keilor. Before she had been abducted, Ms Freeman had the presence of mind to take possession of, and secrete on her person, two mobile telephones. After Meulenbrock's vehicle set off from East Brunswick, Ms Freeman telephoned her mother, and subsequently made a telephone call to triple 0. The occupants of the vehicle, in which she was being held, heard her using her telephone. She was verbally abused by Meulenbrock for doing so. The boot was opened, and Cooper and NKC took the telephone off her. The vehicles then continued on their way to Keilor. While they were in transit, Ms Freeman telephoned another friend, Darren Hanley, and also made a second telephone call to triple 0, on the other telephone, which she had with her.

8 Ultimately, the vehicles parked in Flora Street, East Keilor, a short distance from the banks of the Maribyrnong River. Ms Freeman was taken from the boot of Meulenbrock's vehicle and assaulted. She was forced by you and your co-offenders through the bush to the river. En route, she was further assaulted and kicked.

9 When you reached the riverbank, you threw Leah Freeman into the river. Ms Freeman managed to pull you in with her. You then struck her, and commenced to push Ms Freeman's head forcefully under water on a number of occasions. She kept pushing herself to the surface, only to be forced under again. During that terrifying ordeal, NKC, Cooper and RAC were standing close to the water, to ensure that Ms Freeman could not escape. Karen Hills was standing nearby with Kylie Meulenbrock. Karen Hills and NKC were each shouting out encouragement to you, as you continued to submerge Leah Freeman's head under water.

10 On the last occasion, on which you forced Leah Freeman's head under water, she had to fight hard to push herself to the surface again. She thought she heard another motor vehicle arrive. At the same time, one of your co-offenders said "We've gotta go". RAC and NKC helped you to get out of the water. Your co-offenders and you departed the scene, leaving Leah Freeman in the water.

11 After you had left, Leah Freeman managed to struggle up the bank to the adjacent car park. There she was assisted by two persons, who had parked their vehicle in the car park. They escorted her to a local service station, and from there, she was conveyed by ambulance to the Sunshine Hospital.

12 On the next day, 10 December, you were arrested at premises at Truganina. In an interview conducted with you by the police on that day, you denied that you had been present at, or involved in, the events which I have just related. You claimed to the police that, on the previous day, you had visited a friend in St Albans, with whom you had some drinks. The next thing which you remembered was waking up in Truganina, where you were arrested.

13 As a result of the assaults inflicted on her, Ms Freeman suffered injuries which, by your plea, you have accepted as serious injury. She suffered a fracture of the nasal process of the left maxilla, as well as multiple bruising and abrasions, particularly to her face and head. In addition, Ms Freeman has sustained a severe psychological reaction, which was diagnosed by her general practitioner as a post traumatic stress disorder. In her victim impact statement, Ms Freeman has set out, in detail, the psychological and emotional pain and anguish, with which she is still afflicted as a result of the events, to which you and your co-offenders subjected her. It is understandable that, more than two years later, Ms Freeman continues to be significantly traumatised by the terrifying ordeal, which you and your co-offenders inflicted upon her.

14 The offences, in respect of which you have pleaded guilty, are particularly serious. The maximum sentences for the offences of aggravated burglary and kidnapping are each 25 years' imprisonment. The circumstances, in which those two offences were committed, are particularly disturbing. At the time of those offences, Ms Freeman was defenceless and hopelessly outnumbered by you and your co-offenders. Both you and Brodie Cooper have large physiques. The offence of aggravated burglary involved the violation of the basic right of Leah Freeman to enjoy the safety and security of her own home. The offence of kidnapping is even more serious. It offends against the individual's right to freedom in our society. By its nature, it is a frightening offence. It is an offence which is fraught with danger, often resulting in serious physical and psychological harm to the victim. The circumstances, in which Leah Freeman was physically assaulted and bundled into the boot of the car, and driven, for some 30 minutes, to the destination at Keilor, were calculated to terrify her. It is not surprising that she has suffered ongoing psychological injury as a result of those events, from which she has not yet recovered. The offence of intentionally causing serious injury, which was committed in Brunswick, is also grave. In recent years, the courts have emphasised that such offending should be treated seriously, particularly since offences of that nature have become too prevalent in our society. An aggravating feature of that offence is that it was committed by you, a mature adult, in company with others, against a defenceless woman.

15 The events, which occurred at Maribyrnong River, are no less serious. You and your co-offenders subjected Ms Freeman to the terrifying experience of being taken to a secluded location, where she was again outnumbered, brutally manhandled, and forced to the river, where her head was repeatedly held under water. It is fully understandable that at that time Leah Freeman genuinely thought that she was going to die. By your plea of guilty to recklessly endangering the life of Leah Freeman, you have admitted that, at the time at which you repeatedly held Ms Freeman's head under water, you knew that you were probably exposing Leah Freeman to an appreciable risk that she would die as a result of your actions. It is fortunate, not only for her, but also for you, that that tragic consequence did not come to pass.

16 The conduct, in which you engaged on the night of 9 December 2008, was outrageous and entirely unacceptable. Your conduct struck at the fundamental norms of a decent, civilised and humane society. By acting with the support and assistance of five other co-offenders, you proved yourself to be a callous and craven coward. The aggravated burglary, with which the events commenced, was clearly premeditated. By your plea of guilty for the offence of aggravated burglary, you have admitted that at the time at which you entered Ms Freeman's premises in East Brunswick, you intended that she would be assaulted. While your plans did seem to change while you were at the premises, nevertheless you had plenty of time in which to resile from those plans, particularly before you and your co-offenders arrived in Keilor.

17 In the course of his submissions on your behalf, Mr Morrissey SC accepted that you, with Karen Hills and Brodie Cooper, were the principal protagonists in the commission of each of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty. However, he submitted that, objectively, your responsibility for those offences should be considered to be less than that of Karen Hills, because of the evidence that you only became involved in the events which occurred on that evening at a relatively late stage. I do not accept that submission. The telephone records do indicate that the first contact between you and your co-offenders, on the day of the offences, did not take place until approximately 6.20 pm. However, there is no evidence that your co-offenders had become involved in, or had planned, the commission of the offences before that time. In any event, it was you, Craig Hills, who forced your way into Leah Freeman's house. After you had entered, it was you who took control of the situation. It would appear that, after you were unable to find the people who you were looking for, your plans changed. I accept that it was then that you decided that Leah Freeman should be kidnapped. Again, it was you and your sister, Karen Hills, who made that decision, and you took the lead in implementing it. Thus, at the riverbank it was you who forced Leah Freeman into the water, and then, on repeated occasions pushed her head under the water.

18 In my view, the correct analysis of the events which occurred on 9 December 2008 is that the principal actors were you, Karen Hills and Brodie Cooper. You yourself, physically, took the most active and leading role in the proceedings. Nevertheless, Karen Hills also played a substantial role in them. From the very outset of the incident, she was actively involved in the assault, which took place in Leah Freeman's house. Indeed, it was Karen Hills who struck the first blow to Leah Freeman in her home. She threatened to kill Leah Freeman. At the riverbank, she was actively encouraging you to drown Leah Freeman. In those circumstances, I consider it appropriate to sentence you on the basis that you, and Karen Hills were the lead protagonists in the offences for which you have pleaded guilty. I also accept that the physical involvement of Brodie Cooper in the events, while less than yours, was nevertheless quite significant.

19 You have a number of previous convictions involving some eight previous court appearances, which you have admitted. Relevantly, for the purposes of this case, in May 2001, you received a suspended sentence for one count of aggravated burglary and three counts of recklessly causing injury. In April 2006, you were sentenced to an intensive corrections order for a period of six months in respect of one charge of reckless conduct endangering serious injury, and one charge of unlawful assault.

20 In the absence of any mitigating circumstances, the seriousness of the offences, for which you have pleaded guilty, the role which you played in the commission of them, and your prior convictions, would necessitate that I impose a lengthy sentence on you. However, there are a number of mitigating factors in your case, which need to be elaborated in a little detail.

21 The first mitigating circumstance is the fact that you have pleaded guilty. In this case, I regard your guilty plea as an important mitigating factor for three reasons. First, as with any plea of guilty, your plea in this case is of utilitarian value. If you had contested your guilt, your trial would have taken at least three weeks. Your plea of guilty is thus of practical value in sparing the resources of the State, and, more importantly, in saving a number of witnesses the inconvenience of having to give their evidence in this case for a second time. Secondly, by your plea of guilty, Ms Leah Freeman is not required to give evidence again as to the terrifying circumstances of the evening of 9 December 2008. Thirdly, your plea of guilty is the first occasion upon which you have been able to bring yourself to acknowledge your guilt, and thus your responsibility, for involvement in the events of 9 December 2008. In that way, it is relevant to issues relating to specific deterrence and your rehabilitation, which I shall address later in these remarks.

22 The most significant mitigating factors in your case are to be found in a number of matters, which relate to your personal background. They were the subject of a detailed and persuasive plea made on your behalf by Mr Morrissey. They were also contained in a folder of reports and documents, which were tendered to me, and which I have read carefully. Those matters are relevant for a number of reasons, including reflecting on the level of your culpability for the offences, for which you have pleaded guilty.

23 You are 45 years of age, having been born in November 1965. You are the eldest of three siblings. Your childhood and adolescence were relatively unremarkable. Your parents separated while you were nine years of age, and you remained with your father. When you were 14 years of age, you suffered an injury to your abdomen, while you were doing some part time work. That injury interrupted your education, to which you did not return.

24 After leaving school, you were involved in regular employment until 1997. However, commencing from your mid-20s, you have been the subject of a number of traumatic incidents which have radically affected your life and your physical and psychological wellbeing. You married at a young age. Tragically, your wife, and two young daughters, were killed in a motor vehicle accident, when you were approximately 25 years of age. To this day you remain reluctant to speak about that dreadful tragedy, although I hasten to add that, from the materials which I have read, you bear no responsibility whatsoever for the accident. Nevertheless, it is clear that your loss has significantly affected you, probably more so than you appreciate.

25 For the following eight years or so after the accident, you took to drinking alcohol in excessive quantities. From then on, you were only working on a part time basis. During that period, you met your most recent partner, Ms Michelle Willis. She helped you to reduce your intake of alcohol. Your relationship with Ms Willis lasted for some time. Ultimately, she left you because of your obsession with a revolutionary toothbrush, which you were developing, and for which you now hold worldwide patents. However, your friendship with Ms Willis has continued, and I note that she was in court, during sentencing submissions, to give you support.

26 In 1997, while you were working on the roof of a building, you fell through the roof. As a result, you suffered injuries to your leg and spine. You discharged yourself from hospital before your injuries were sufficiently healed, and, apparently, you still have screws in your left leg as a result of that incident. From that time, you have been in receipt of a disability pension. From time to time, you assisted your father, who is a self-employed builder. You also spent a substantial amount of time developing the toothbrush, which you had designed, and endeavouring to have it marketed. As a result of those efforts, you have become embroiled in disputes, which have led to some litigation.

27 After you separated from Michelle Willis, you returned to live with your father. During that period, you continued to consume alcohol to excess. In June 2007, you were nearly fatally stabbed to death by Beau McMahon, when you were attending the Footscray Ministry of Housing flats. At the time, you were in company with your sister's boyfriend, Frank Marijancevic. Apparently, Marijancevic made a provocative remark to McMahon, as a result of which he stabbed you in the left side of your chest. You were admitted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, where you underwent emergency surgery. It is clear, from the reports which I have received, that that incident not only resulted in serious physical injury to you, but, even more significantly, it caused you to suffer a severe post-traumatic stress disorder, which has not resolved to this date, but which has been aggravated by a number of other subsequent incidents, in which you have been involved.

28 In January 2008, you were referred to a psychiatrist, Dr Stella Kwong. At that time, she diagnosed you as suffering from a very severe post-traumatic stress disorder. The condition was so serious that you were found to fulfil almost all the criteria prescribed by the diagnostic manual for that disorder. In June 2008, the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal referred you to Ms Jane Schuppner, a psychologist. You have seen Ms Schuppner on some 46 occasions over the last three years for treatment and assistance.

29 In her reports, Ms Schuppner has set out, in detail, the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, from which you have continued to suffer. They include a number of symptoms, which have some relevance for present purposes, namely, frequent dreams and nightmares, frequent feelings of reliving the incident, avoidance symptoms, excess anger, concentration difficulties, and anxiety. In August 2008, Ms Schuppner considered that you suffered a post-traumatic stress disorder to a significant degree.

30 In the meantime, as a result of your experiences, and the pain which you suffered, you became heavily reliant on opiate analgesics, and in particular Oxycontin medication. During the last four years, you have taken quantities of that analgesic medication, which substantially exceed the amount which has been prescribed for you. At the same time, you continued to drink to excess.

31 Despite Ms Schuppner's intervention, your condition continued unabated. The trial of Beau McMahon, for the attempted murder of you, began in late September 2008. In the course of your evidence, after your cross-examination had started, you were unable to continue. On the next day, the trial was discontinued, because you had been admitted to hospital. It appears that the trauma of endeavouring to recount the circumstances of the near fatal assault on you had a dramatic effect on you, and you were unable to continue to give evidence in the trial. In a report written by her, on 28 October 2008, Ms Schuppner did not anticipate that you would be fit to give evidence for another six to twelve months.

32 It was in that background that you came to be involved in the offences which you committed on 9 December 2008. There is independent evidence that, on that day, a friend had driven you to a hotel, in order to purchase a quantity of alcohol, which you had then proceeded to consume at a friend's house in St Albans. It is not alleged that you were drinking on that day, in order to embolden you to commit the offences, which occurred. Rather, it would seem that you were indulging in what had become your habit, of medicating yourself for your physical and psychological pain, by excessive consumption of alcohol and prescribed medications.

33 I accept that, as a result of your ingestion of alcohol and analgesic medication, you were significantly disinhibited, and your judgment was impaired. I also accept that you genuinely felt a sense of grievance against Leah Freeman arising out of your stabbing by Beau McMahon. I add that there is no evidence that you had any legitimate reason to harbour any grievance against Leah Freeman in that respect. Nevertheless, I do accept that, in your diminished psychological state, and fuelled by alcohol and analgesic medication, you thought otherwise.

34 Of course, the fact that you felt a sense of grievance against Leah Freeman is no excuse at all for what you have done. However, it does assist to explain how and why you became involved in the offences. More importantly, I accept that, at that time, your psychological state was such that your capacity to take proper responsibility for your actions, and to exercise good judgment, was significantly diminished. Nevertheless, the fact remains that you did know what you were doing, and you knew that what you were doing was wrong.

35 After your arrest in this matter, you remained in custody until you were granted bail on 4 March 2009. Thereafter, you have lived with your father at his house in Sunbury. You have continued to undergo treatment with Ms Schuppner, but it appears that little progress has been made with resolving your symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

36 The trial of you and your co-accused was due to commence in April 2010. However, as a result of an incident involving yourself, Karen Hills and Ms Meulenbrock, I revoked the bail of yourself and Karen Hills. The trial was unable to continue, because of an injury you sustained during that incident. You were then released on bail. One month later, on 25 May 2010, you suffered serious injuries, when you were involved in an incident in the car park of the Crown Casino. At the time of that incident, you were heavily intoxicated, and you do not have much memory of it. However, you had the impression that a vehicle was driving at you. As a result, you jumped, and fell a number of floors. You were conveyed to the Alfred Hospital, having sustained a number of injuries, including multiple fractures of your right heel and your left leg. You also suffered a fractured wrist. You remained in hospital for two weeks. Subsequently, you had to return to hospital, because you had contracted a staphylococcal infection. Not surprisingly, the incident, and the injuries which you sustained, exacerbated your psychological symptoms. In September 2010, Ms Schuppner wrote a report stating that she did not consider you to be psychologically fit to participate in your trial. That opinion was supported by a report of Dr Lester Walton, consultant psychiatrist.

37 In August 2010, you were involved in another accident. On that occasion, you were travelling as a passenger in your father's motor vehicle, when it was struck from behind by another vehicle. As a result, you suffered fractured ribs, and your psychological state was further impaired.

38 That background brings me to your current state. Unsurprisingly, Ms Schuppner, in her recent report, remains of the view that you continue to suffer from severe post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr Cummins, an experienced clinical and forensic psychologist, has seen you on three occasions recently, for consultations which, in total, have lasted four and a half hours. Mr Cummins has formed the view that you do not have any relevant personality disorder. On testing, he found that you do have significant memory and concentration problems. From the amount of alcohol, which you have reported consuming, he considers that you qualify to be classified as an alcoholic. He has also concluded that you suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, which has resulted from the multiple traumatic events which you have experienced. Mr Cummins considers that your excessive use of alcohol and prescribed medications exacerbate your underlying feelings of anxiety and depression. He expressed the view that, in the background of your complex post-traumatic stress disorder, the self-medication by you, through the overuse of alcohol and prescribed medications, would have clouded your judgment and reasoning on the night, on which the offences were committed. Mr Cummins is of the view that you require ongoing psychiatric and psychological treatment, which should include being weaned off prescribed medications through participating in a residential pain management program. Mr Cummins has noted that you are particularly apprehensive about being incarcerated, because you fear for your safety.

39 The views expressed by Mr Cummins are fundamentally supported by Dr Walton in his latest report of 23 May 2011. Dr Walton is of the view that you suffer from a reasonably severe post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from multiple events. He agrees that the use by you of alcohol and drugs, in the background of your stress disorder, would have affected your mental state at the time at which you committed the offences, particularly by interfering with your proper judgment.

40 The background matters relating to you are relevant for a number of reasons in relation to your sentence. First, as I have already stated, I am satisfied that your psychological condition, combined with your excessive intake of alcohol and analgesic medication, played a material role in your offending in this case. In particular, while they do not excuse your participation in the serious offences for which you have pleaded guilty, they do mitigate, to a material extent, your culpability for the offending. In addition, I accept that, as a result of your medical and psychological condition, a term of imprisonment will be quite difficult for you. The reports of Dr Mansie and Dr Pattison of the Family Medical Centre at Sunbury, which you attend, make it clear that your medicinal needs, arising from your conditions, will present particular difficulties for you during your term of imprisonment. That observation is supported by the opinions of Mr Cummins and Dr Walton. In this connection, I am also satisfied that you may well require to be placed in protection while you are in custody, because of your role as a witness for the prosecution in the trial of Beau McMahon. That need for your protection has been reinforced by a threat of violence which was made to you, while you were still in the court precincts, at the conclusion of sentencing submissions before me.

41 By reason of the matters, which I have set out at some length, it is clear that there are a number of mitigating circumstances, which are relevant in determining your sentence. In particular, as I have already stated, I take into account your plea of guilty, your psychological state when you offended, and your current physical and psychological disabilities. As indicated I also take into account the fact that a term of imprisonment will be more difficult for you, not only because of your health problems, but also because of the need for you to be protected during your term of custody.

42 In determining your sentence, it is important that there be a measure of parity between the sentence imposed on you and the sentence imposed on your co-offenders, and in particular Karen Hills and Brodie Cooper, who were the two other main protagonists in the offending in which you were involved. There are, of course, a number of differences between your cases, so that, in a case such as this, the requirements of parity do not dictate that I impose the same sentence on you, which was imposed on either Karen Hills or Brodie Cooper. Your offending in the case was more serious than that of Brodie Cooper. As I have already stated, I regard you as the lead protagonist in the offences. Further, at the time of the offending, Brodie Cooper was only 18 years of age. It does not stand to your credit at all that you involved him, together with your 15 year old nephew, NKC, and his 15 year old associate, RAC, in the same offending. In sentencing Brodie Cooper, I regarded his age as a significant mitigating factor. Although he had a number of previous convictions including for violent offending, his youth, and his extraordinarily disadvantaged background, meant that rehabilitation was of greater significance in his case than it is in yours.

43 There are also differences between your case and that of your sister Karen Hills. As I have stated, your role in the offences was somewhat more substantial than that of Ms Hills. While she had more previous convictions than you, she did not have any previous convictions for violence. On the other hand, you have pleaded guilty which, as I have indicated, is an important mitigating factor. As I found, there are significant mitigating factors relating to your involvement in the offending, and relating to the circumstances in which you will be held in custody.

44 In determining your sentence, it is important that I take into account the principal purposes for sentencing in a case such as this. The sentence must be sufficient to properly express the condemnation by the court, and the community, of your violent offending. Although, because of your psychological condition, the weight to be given by me to the consideration of general deterrence is somewhat moderated, nevertheless it is important that the sentence, which I impose, be sufficient to make it clear that the courts will not tolerate the type of offending, in which you were involved. The question of your rehabilitation is somewhat problematic, because of the complexity of your condition. However, I do consider that a term of imprisonment is important to act as a specific deterrent to you, so that you may fully understand that, notwithstanding your physical and psychological difficulties, the type of conduct, in which you involved yourself, is entirely unacceptable, and will be met with stern punishment.

45 Taking the above matters into account, I sentence you as follows:

(a) On count 1 (aggravated burglary), I sentence you to 2 years' imprisonment.

(b) On count 2 (kidnapping), I sentence you to 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

(c) On count 3 (intentionally causing serious injury), I sentence you to 2 years' imprisonment.

(d) On count 4 (reckless conduct endangering life), I sentence you to 3 years' imprisonment.

46 I direct that 6 months of the sentence on count 3, and 18 months of the sentence on count 4, be served cumulatively upon your sentence on count 2, and upon each other. Thus your total effective sentence shall be 6 years and 6 months' imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment before you become eligible for parole.

47 Pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act, I declare that the period of 112 days be reckoned as already served under the sentence which I impose. I shall cause a notation to be made in the records of the court that that declaration was made.

48 As I have stated, I have taken into account your plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance. I am bound, by s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, to state the sentence which I would have imposed on you, if you had not pleaded guilty. That is a difficult task, because your plea of guilty is necessarily interrelated with other mitigating circumstances to which I have already referred. However, doing the best I can, if you had pleaded not guilty, I would have imposed the following sentences:

(a) On count 1 (aggravated burglary) - 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

(b) On count 2 (kidnapping) - 6 years' imprisonment.

(c) On count 3 (intentionally causing serious injury) - 3 years' imprisonment.

(d) On count 4 (reckless conduct endangering life) - 4 years' imprisonment.

49 I would have directed that 6 months of your sentence on count 3, and 18 months of your sentence on count 4, be served cumulatively on your sentence on count 2, and upon each other. Thus, your total effective sentence (if you had not pleaded guilty) would have been 8 years' imprisonment, and I would have set a minimum non-parole period of 5 years.

50 Finally, the materials tendered on your plea will be relevant to your proper disposition in custody, and for the purposes of the Parole Board. I shall therefore direct that there be sent to the Director-General of Corrections, and to the Parole Board, a copy of my sentencing remarks, together with a copy of the reports of Ms Schuppner, Mr Cummins, Dr Mansie and Dr Pattison.