R v Aniezue [2016] ACTSC 82

Supreme Court of the ACT|2016-04-11|Before: Refshauge J

1. Arinze Aniezue is convicted of using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person whom you believe to be under the age of 16 years (XO 16/3).

2. Arinze Aniezue is sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, to commence on 12 November 2015, to take into account pre-sentence custody.

3. Arinze Aniezue be released forthwith upon giving security by recognizance in the sum of $500 with a condition that he be of good behaviour for 18 months and that he, for that period or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate, be on probation; that is, to be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate.

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Judgment and Punishment - Sentencing - using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person under the age of 16 years - Facebook messages - principles in indecent communications cases

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Judgment and Punishment - Sentencing - extra curial punishment- 'unlawful non-citizen' - deportation imminent

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Judgment and Punishment - Sentencing - backdating of sentence - immigration detention - custody 'in relation to the offence' - 'in relation to' - detention a consequence of offending

Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339

Da Costa Junior v The Queen [2016] VSCA 49

Einfeld v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 87; (2010) 266 ALR 598

Guden v The Queen [2010] VSCA 196; (2010) 28 VR 288

In the Marriage of Aldred (1984) 9 Fam LR 539

Islam v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 2

Konamala v The Queen [2016] VSCA 48

O'Grady v The Northern Queensland Company Ltd [1990] HCA 16; (1990) 169 CLR 356

Perlman v Perlman [1984] HCA 4; (1984) 155 CLR 474

Rosser v Donges [1990] 1 Qd R 490

R v Budd (Unreported, District Court of New South Wales, Charteris DCJ, 2 October 2007),

R v DF (No 2) (2012) 257 FLR 31

R v Fearne [2014] ACTSC 172

R v Harris (Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Farr SC DCJ, No 904 of 2014, 20 August 2014)

R v Hutton (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Barr J, SC 21403858, 19 June 2014)

R v Llewellyn (Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Koppenol DCJ, 9 February 2012).

R v Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green [1984] HCA 82; (1984) 156 CLR 185

R v Van Hoang Pham [2005] NSWCCA 94

Tan v The Queen (2011) 216 A Crim R 535

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

1. The internet has brought great benefits and some prosperity to society but it also has the capacity to enable crime to flourish.

2. The rise of social media in combination with the internet has increased connectedness, especially amongst younger people. It has also placed them at some risk from those who would use the facility for criminal ends.

3. The increasing access to pornography is a by-product of the development of the internet, but it has also given those who would prey on children for sexual purposes a mechanism for and more convenient means of doing so.

4. As a result, legislatures have created crimes with serious penalties to set appropriate standards of behaviour in this area and to punish and deter those who would misuse such resources for improper and selfish or sexual purposes.

5. Arinze Edwin Aniezue has pleaded guilty to a charge using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to the recipient, being someone whom he believed to be under the age of 16 years.

6. This is an offence against s 474.27A of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) which provides for a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment for the offence.

7. Mr Aniezue was arrested on 7 August 2015 and appeared in the Magistrates Court the next day. He was remanded in custody.

8. On 14 August 2015, he was granted bail, but his student visa was cancelled and he was detained in immigration detention from 19 November 2015. He was taken to a detention centre in Western Australia, some three hours drive from Perth airport.

9. On 17 December 2015, he was committed for trial to this Court and an indictment was filed containing two counts, the second an alternative to the other.

10. On 24 March 2016, he appeared before me and pleaded guilty to the second alternative count on the indictment, the charge referred to above (at [6]), and was refused bail. This had the effect of transferring his custody to the Alexander Maconochie Centre from the former immigration detention.

11. A Notice Declining to Proceed with the more serious offence of using a carriage service to groom a child (s 474.27 of the Criminal Code) was filed. See R v DF (No 2) (2012) 257 FLR 31 at 38; [45].

12. He appeared on 5 April 2016 when I heard sentencing submissions on his behalf and from the Crown.

13. A detailed Statement of Facts was admitted by consent. I do not need to set out the whole of the facts there recorded but I can make the following findings from it.

14. Mr Aniezue made a friend request on the Facebook profile of the young female victim, to whom I will refer as HQ. She was then aged 12 and Mr Aniezue was 22. Her profile showed a photograph of her in her school uniform, though I did not have a copy of that in evidence to see how she appeared in the photograph.

15. There was an initial communication between Mr Aniezue and HQ which was, at first, friendly and, apart from a comment that she had "a lovely profile pic", completely bland.

16. The communication then turned to HQ's age, but apart from saying that she was at high school, she did not say how old she was. The communication turned to whether HQ had a boyfriend and she said she did not as she did not want to be in a relationship at that time.

17. HQ's stepfather later saw the communications with HQ's consent and was concerned at the direction it had taken and that Mr Aniezue, from his picture, appeared significantly older than HQ. He was concerned.

18. After reminding HQ of the need to be careful as to who she befriended online, her stepfather then indicated he would show her the dangers of doing this. He then assumed HQ's profile and began communicating with Mr Aniezue.

19. I had details of the communications but I do not need to set them out in full. It commenced innocuously until Mr Aniezue suggested that he and the person with whom he was communicating, whom he thought was HQ, should "hang out sometime to get ice cream or something". At that stage, HQ's stepfather, posing as HQ, raised the question of age, and, in the communication, Mr Aniezue said he knew that she was 14 to 16 and said he was 21 but had "dated 15 year ols [sic] before". HQ's stepfather, posing as HQ, then said she was "nearly 13".

20. The communication then turned sexual and Mr Aniezue asked whether she had "slept with someone before" and whether she had kissed. HQ's stepfather, posing as HQ, returned to the offer of meeting for ice cream and expressed hesitation as to what may then happen, which, while it included "[t]alk and chill" and going to a movie, also included "[m]aking out", which evoked a response that "I've never been with an older guy or well any guy". Mr Aniezue said, "so u [sic] think we may have sex u [sic] mean?" HQ's stepfather, posing as HQ, replied "isn't that what older guys want? ypu [sic] might hurt me". Mr Aniezue said that it was not what he wanted.

21. The communication continued, ranging over a number of subjects, including whether HQ watched pornography, whether Mr Aniezue thought she was a slut and to acknowledgment that she was "just 12".

22. Later, the communication turned to meeting and HQ's stepfather, posing as HQ, asked, "if anything sex like, it will be my first time" and later asked what Mr Aniezue liked, to which he replied, "slow sex".

23. The communication continued with a later agreement that they would be just friends but then still later returned to sex, with Mr Aniezue describing sex acts that he would do on HQ, including pulling her pants down and licking her vagina. The communication was overtly sexual and the communication later ended.

24. HQ's stepfather contacted police, who attended the next day and took possession of HQ's phone and thumb drive and took over control of the communications.

25. A police officer, posing as HQ, then recommenced communication with Mr Aniezue and he brought up the subject of a meeting and whether HQ wanted sex, Mr Aniezue saying "if u [sic] want sex ... I will give that to u [sic] ... but that's not what I want!"

26. There were further communications about meeting, and Mr Aniezue said that he did want sex but deferred to HQ, with the conversation continuing in that see-saw fashion until the police officer, posing as HQ, said in answer to a direct question, "if ur [sic] answer is yes, therm [sic] mine is too."

27. The communication continued with arrangements concluded to meet on the morning of 7 August 2015, a little after 10:00 am at Belconnen.

28. Mr Aniezue attended at the agreed place and was approached by police officers who had a conversation with him. He was cautioned and gave his name. He explained he had arranged to meet someone who, he said, had told him she was 12 and that "she started talking about sex and everything just led up to here ..." He denied planning to have sex with her but wanted to see what she looked like. He later said that he did not know her real age and that her photograph looked like she was 18 but he needed to see for himself.

29. At a later interview, he said that HQ added him on Facebook and he did not ask her age and that she kept referring to sex and he kept saying no. He did not "agree" with the offence.

30. The offence is constituted by the offender having indecent communications over the internet or telephone system with a person under 16.

31. The maximum penalty for the offence shows that it is to be regarded as a serious offence and is a helpful yardstick to assess its relative seriousness.

32. There has been a consideration of other factors that are relevant to the question of how serious the offence is. Some of these matters are discussed by McClellan CJ at CL, with whom Latham and Price JJ agreed in R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316; (2010) 216 A Crim R 48. In that case, his Honour apparently accepted matters which had been identified by the learned Sentencing Judge. As that case was for a more serious offence, not all the factors were relevant.

33. In my view, including some of those mentioned in that case, the relevant factors, at least, include:

• the nature of the indecent material communicated, including its explicitness;

• the offender's level of awareness and indecency and deliberateness in communicating;

• the age differential between the offender and the victim and the knowledge of that age;

• the nature of the relationship between the offender and the victim;

• the period of time over which the communication took place and the number of messages transmitted; and

• whether the person with whom the offender communicated is a child or a police officer or other adult impersonating a child.

34. These offences are also hard to detect and, as such, require a level of general deterrence to feature in the sentence to be imposed.

35. In this case, the subject matter of the communication became quite sexual and explicit, suggesting something akin to cunnilingus, but they were not as explicit as many that are subject to prosecutions. There were no photographs exchanged and, in particular, no explicit photographs.

36. The period over which the communication took place was quite short. While the period was seven days, there were only three of those days in which communications were actually transmitted, though there were single text messages on two of the other days; see R v Nahlous [2013] NSWCCA 90; (2013) 228 A Crim R 503 at 510; [51].

37. The age difference was reasonably significant. Mr Aniezue was 22 and HQ was 12. Her age was clear in the communications, including her Facebook photograph. While HQ's stepfather took over the communications before it became explicitly sexual, there had been a mention of a boyfriend and the reference to "Have you been with anyone?", the fact was that the initial contact was with an actual child and it was only discovery of the communications by her mother and stepfather that ceased HQ's direct contact. Nevertheless, the most explicit communications were with HQ's stepfather and subsequently with a police officer.

38. The contact became explicit and quite indecent. There was, however, no other relationship between Mr Aniezue and HQ.

39. The Crown pointed out that a meeting had been arranged in the communications with Mr Aniezue and that she would, it was agreed, not wear her uniform to the meeting. Mr Aniezue actually attended at the arranged place and time, expecting to meet HQ. He did say to police, when arrested, that he would only talk to her and that he wanted to see if she was real. Whatever scepticism is appropriate for these comments, it seems to me that this would, were it to be accepted as an aggravating feature, breach the principles in R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; (1981) 147 CLR 383, as that would clearly be an element of the more serious offence, which was discontinued.

40. Nevertheless, as the features I have identified show, this was a serious example of the offence, though by no means as serious as many that are seen before the courts.

41. Mr Aniezue gave evidence before me, wrote me a history of his life, and I had a Court Duty Report, the author of which also gave evidence. I made the following findings from this material.

42. Mr Aniezue was born 23 years ago in Nigeria where he appears to have initially had a happy childhood. He has one sister who is two years younger. He witnessed some violence, however, when his family was robbed and his mother nearly shot in the head. Their lives were thereafter threatened many times.

43. When he was eight, his father left to attend a funeral one day and never returned. It was later reported to the family that he had died in a car crash, but they learned some years later that he had, in fact, been murdered.

44. Shortly after that, in 2005, the family left Nigeria and went to Singapore and from there to Malaysia where they settled in November 2005. Mr Aniezue stated that he studied at the Fairview International School and spent three years at the Segi University College where he gained a Diploma in Business Administration.

45. He then moved to Australia, gaining a student visa, having secured a four-year student visa in 2014 to complete a Bachelor course in Advertising and Marketing at the University of Canberra.

46. His sister followed him to Australia and also settled in Canberra, where she is also studying at the University of Canberra. Their mother remains in Malaysia and has provided the money needed for educational fees and living expenses.

47. Mr Aniezue was reared in the Catholic faith and has participated in its worship as a sanctuary server. He found some discrimination in Malaysia amongst the mainly Muslim population. He says that he tried hard to integrate into the Australian way of life when he arrived here and that is how he came to join Facebook.

48. He is reported by the author of the Court Duty Report to have shown some insight into his offending behaviour and the impact of his actions on his victim and her family. He acknowledged that it was an error of judgment and expressed disappointment over his actions.

49. Mr Aniezue has no criminal record. This, ordinarily, means that some leniency can be extended to him, and I will do so.

50. I had two references; the first from his parish priest was quite general and guarded because of lack of recent contact. It did not disclose whether the author knew of the offence to which Mr Aniezue has pleaded guilty. It described him as a "well presented young man, quiet, always courteous and considerate." This was consistent with his presentation in court.

51. His mother provided the other reference. It can, of course, be expected that a mother would provide a favourable reference, which may need to be discounted to some extent, but it should not be discarded. She describes that he "thrives in his academics and loves to study history." She describes him as dedicated to his church and as "peaceful and disciplined." He has, she said, "love for his elder and younger ones" and "[h]e has a great sense of humour".

52. He has, she added, expressed remorse for his actions and how deeply he regrets the offences. He realises that his actions have also impacted on his family.

53. Mr Aniezue had his student visa cancelled and was, as noted, taken into immigration detention. He was then taken to Perth where he was isolated, as his only Australian family was his sister, who was in Canberra and obviously unable to travel to Perth in the circumstances.

54. In a notice from the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, curiously undated, Mr Aniezue has been informed that, as an unlawful non-citizen, he will, upon his release from the Alexander Moonachie Centre, be deported and returned to immigration detention.

55. The notice makes no mention of any possibility of an appeal from the decision and so I assume that it is not subject to appeal. No submission was made to me by either party, and particularly the Crown, to suggest that I should approach the matter of deportation in any other way.

56. As a result of the cancellation of Mr Aniezue's visa, he has forfeited his student fees, which I was told were $23,000 and non-refundable. He will also, of course, be unable to complete his studies.

57. As a matter of sentencing principle, punishment or relevant detriment suffered by an offender as a consequence of the commission of the offence may, in a proper case, be taken into account in sentencing; see R v Daetz [2003] NSWCCA 216; (2003) 139 A Crim R 398 at 410-1; [62].

58. Basten JA described such a matter in Einfeld v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 87; (2010) 266 ALR 598 at 618-21; [85]- [97]. His Honour referred to the "two limbs" - that it is imposed otherwise than by the sentencing court and that it is punishment, a concept his Honour held had been treated with less rigour. In particular, it was unclear whether it included legal consequences of a kind flowing directly from the conviction or sentence such as disqualification from holding an office.

59. In that case, his Honour was critical of a range of matters that had been identified as extra-curial punishment in R v Rivkin [2002] NSWSC 1182; (2003) 198 ALR, 400 but did consider that the possibility of the revocation of Mr Rivkin's security dealer's licence was such a punishment. In the case before him, his Honour concluded that withdrawal of the offender's commission as Queens Counsel, non-renewal of his practising certificate, and removal of his name from the roll of legal practitioners would all constitute extra-curial punishment.

60. It seems to me, therefore, that the cancellation of Mr Aniezues student visa, and thus his loss of enrolment in his degree course, and the loss to his family of the fees paid for his study, would all constitute extra-curial punishment.

61. No submission to the contrary was made by the Crown.

62. The admitted letter from the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection makes it clear that, upon release from custody at the end of the custodial portion of the sentence imposed on Mr Aniezue, he will be taken into immigration detention and then deported.

63. The effect of the likelihood of deportation has not been uniformly approached in Australia. In R v Van Hoang Pham [2005] NSWCCA 94 at [13], the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal held that it was "established principal" that the deportation of an offender was irrelevant in sentencing.

64. This, however, has not been the recent position in Victoria. In 2011, the Court of Appeal in Guden v The Queen [2010] VSCA 196; (2010) 28 VR 288 at 294-5; [25]- [27] held that the prospect of deportation is a factor that may be relevant to the impact that a sentence of imprisonment must have on an offender, both during the currency of the incarceration and upon his or her release, and that, therefore, the prospects of such deportation, subject to proper evidence about it, should be taken into account. This approach has been followed since then. See Tan v The Queen (2011) 216 A Crim R 535 at 568-9; [126]-[129]; Konamala v The Queen [2016] VSCA 48 at [23]- [38] and Da Costa Junior v The Queen [2016] VSCA 49 at [22]- [33].

65. These courts have made it clear that the prospects of deportation is relevant to sentencing and that there must be appropriate evidence which shows that the prospects are certain or, at the very least, realistic and not, for example, subject to appeals and discretions.

66. In this case, the notice admitted into evidence shows that Mr Aniezue will be deported and there is no suggestion of an appeal. Neither counsel, especially for the Crown, who helpfully provided some of the relevant authorities, provided any legislation or other material suggestive of any other basis on which I should find other than that Mr Aniezue will be deported.

67. On the basis of this authority, I consider that I should take into account as a factor that will bear heavily upon Mr Aniezue (indeed, it already will have done so because of the receipt of the letter), that he will be deported.

68. This is partly because he is likely to be deported to Nigeria, where he has limited family, only his grandmother, and because his mother is in Malaysia where he may or may not be permitted to enter. It is to be acknowledged that he has previously returned to Nigeria in 2010 and early 2014.

69. By operation of s 68 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), the procedure as to sentencing provided for by the Territory legislature applies, save insofar as it is otherwise provided for in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

70. In this case, counsel for Mr Aniezue referred to s 63 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), which provides for the backdating of sentences to take into account

... any period during which the offender has already been held in custody in relation to the offence.

71. The Crown submitted that this did not include the period during which Mr Aniezue had been held in immigration detention.

72. It is not clear why that should be so. It was, of course, a period in custody. The Crimes (Sentencing) Act does not define custody to exclude periods of custody other than those on remand when bail is refused. In my view, there is no reason to make such a distinction.

73. I note, also, that s 63 refers to the custody being "in relation to the offence." The term "in relation to" may often have wider or narrower connotations, as noted by Byrne J in Rosser v Donges [1990] 1 Qd R 490 at 492. Context may be important and often that means that words are given a quite wide meaning, as In the Marriage of Aldred (1984) 9 Fam LR 539 at 542. This seems to me to be appropriate where the legislature is dealing with the rights and interests of offenders.

74. That is not to say that any connection between the custody and offences is sufficient, as Gibbs CJ said in Perlman v Perlman [1984] HCA 4; (1984) 155 CLR 474 at 484:

The words 'in relation to' import the existence of a connexion or association between the two proceedings or, in other words, that the proceedings in question must bear an appropriate relationship to completed proceedings of the requisite kind.

75. This general approach, though there related to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), was followed in R v Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green [1984] HCA 82; (1984) 156 CLR 185 at 196-7, 210 and, more generally, in O'Grady v The Northern Queensland Company Ltd [1990] HCA 16; (1990) 169 CLR 356 at 367, where Dawson J commented:

[w]hat is required is a relevant relationship, having regard to the scope of the Act.

76. I note that the drafter of s 63 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act did not provide, for example, that the custody should be "solely in relation to the offence" which, were it meant, should have been said. Thus, while an offender, who is awaiting trial, or sentence, has been held in custody as a result, that seems to me to fit within the section.

77. In this case, the cancellation of Mr Aniezue's visa was a consequence of the offending. There was no other reason. His detention was because his visa had been cancelled and he became, in the rather curious words of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), an "unlawful non-citizen" and that required his detention because he was such an unlawful non-citizen because of the offending.

78. In any event, it appears to me that the Court of Appeal came to the same conclusion in Islam v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 2 at [25], and I am, of course, bound by that decision.

79. I shall take the periods on remand and in immigration detention into account.

80. The Crown provided me with a range of sentencing decisions. I have already referred to R v Asplund, though that deals with the more serious offence of using a carriage service to groom a child, and also R v Nahlous.

81. In addition, I was referred to R v Fearne [2014] ACTSC 172, R v Hutton (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Barr J, SC 21403858, 19 June 2014) and two decisions of District Courts: R v Harris (Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Farr SC DCJ, No 904 of 2014, 20 August 2014) and R v Llewellyn (Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Koppenol DCJ, 9 February 2012). As has been explained in R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; (2015) 325 ALR 400, there should be consistency in sentencing of Federal offenders throughout Australia and sentencing decisions of other jurisdictions are therefore important in relation to such offences.

82. I have read each of the decisions carefully and considered the principles that may be ascertained from them and the range of sentences imposed, not so that they constitute a permissible range but so that I can compare the sentence I impose to achieve appropriate consistency.

83. I have regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. In this case, general deterrence must play a significant part. Given Mr Aniezue's age, prior good character and insight, though not complete, I do not consider that specific deterrence need play a substantial role. I do not expect that Mr Aniezue will re-offend. See R v Nahlous at 516; [89].

84. I did not have a victim impact statement but the court is aware that such offences have the capacity to do great harm to young persons in the community. See R v Asplund at 62; [50].

85. I have set out above (at [13]-[40]) the nature and circumstances of the offence and have regard to its objective seriousness. It is by no means the most serious version of such offence, but there are aggravating features present.

86. I take into account the plea of guilty entered by Mr Aniezue. Even though it was not entered at the earliest time, it was entered to the alternative offence on the indictment, which was accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment. The discount is, of course, not for its utilitarian value, including saving the community the expenses of the trial (see Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 at 343; [12]-[14], 352-3; [44]), but I am satisfied that it shows evidence of remorse and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.

87. I take into account Mr Aniezue's age. He is still a relatively young man, and, as I judge, somewhat immature, despite legally being an adult. See Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459 at 469.

88. I consider that he has promising prospects of rehabilitation with his insight, family support, and given the devastating consequences to him of the offending. As noted, and mentioned in R v Nahlous at 511; [59], when reporting the decision of the District Court of New South Wales in R v Budd (Unreported, District Court of New South Wales, Charteris DCJ, 2 October 2007), "[i]t is now well recognised that prison is counter-productive to rehabilitation".

89. I note that Mr Aniezue has spent 21 weeks and four days in custody. I note that he has not been assessed for the purposes of community service work condition of a recognizance release order.

90. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence, I consider that a sentence of imprisonment is the only sentence to be imposed.

1. I convict you of using of using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person whom you believe to be under the age of 16 years.

2. I sentence you to 10 months imprisonment to commence on 12 November 2015, to take into account pre-sentence custody.

3. I direct that you be released forthwith upon giving security by recognizance in the sum of $500 with a condition that you be of good behaviour for 18 months and that you, for that period or such lesser period as the person supervising you considers appropriate, be on probation; that is, to be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate.

92. Mr Aniezue, I am required to explain that sentence to you. I have indicated that a period of 10 months imprisonment is appropriate as a punishment for that sentence, but I do not require you to serve any more time in imprisonment. I imagine that that means that you will be taken into immigration detention again, in preparation to your deportation, of which you have had notice. I have made a recognizance release order which means you will have to sign a document before you are released which undertakes not to commit any further offences.

93. While that is the formal order that I make, it probably has no express consequences, but if you do come back to Australia within the period of 18 months, and that is unlikely, and if you commit any further offences, you can be brought back before the court and you can be sentenced again for the offences that you have committed, but also for breaching this recognizance release order. It also applies while you are in immigration

detention, from where, if you commit any offences then you can be brought back to the court and you can be re-sentenced for those offences and also for the breaching of the recognizance release order.

I certify that the preceding ninety-four [93] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Refshauge.

(Sentencing) Act 2005

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (145 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (11)