R v GP

Facts

1. The facts are before the court by way of a set of agreed facts that are at tab 2 of Exhibit A on sentence, the Crown tender bundle. The offender is married to the mother of the victims. They have a son of that relationship. From about the middle of 2012 to March 2014 the family lived in a home in a town in southern New South Wales. In March 2014 they moved to another address in the same town. The victim in the first count was 12 and 13 at the time of the offending. The victim in the second count was 13 at the time of the offending. I go initially to the facts relating to the first count.
2. On 22 March 2013, i.e. the day before the wedding of the offender and the victim's mother a number of family members were present at the family home. The victim got up and went up the stairs. Her mother told her that the offender wanted her (victim) to tickle his back, which was something that the offender liked and the victim had done before.
3. The victim went to the bedroom where the offender was on the bed without a shirt. The victim's mother came into the room and said that she was going out. The victim sat on the bed and tickled the offender's back with her fingers. The offender asked if he could tickle the victim's back. The victim lay on her stomach on the bed and the offender started tickling her back, putting his hands under her t-shirt and he then ran his hands around the front of the victim's shirt rubbing her stomach and breasts.
4. The offender then got off the bed and closed the door. He pulled his pants down exposing his erect penis. He then pulled the victim's pants and underpants down. He positioned himself on top of the victim and inserted his penis into her vagina while the victim was lying on her back. The victim felt what is described in the facts as immense pain in her vagina. The intercourse lasted for five to ten minutes during which time the victim was crying.
5. After the offender had finished he admonished the victim not to tell anyone as it would ruin her mother's life. The victim went to her room and cried. She proceeded to act normally around the house. The offender later told the victim that if she told anyone he would kill himself. The victim was scared that if she told anyone it would ruin her mother's marriage and that the offender would kill himself.
6. The facts then go to events between 23 March 2013 and 18 August 2013. Sometime during that time frame the offender took the victim to the tool shed and forced her to perform fellatio on him. The offender also had penile-vaginal intercourse with the victim in her bedroom a number of times but the victim cannot remember all the details of all of the occasions. It is plain from this that the penile-vaginal intercourse occurred on multiple occasions.
7. During the same period the offender and the victim travelled to another country centre to visit friends and relatives. They stayed with a friend of the offender in a one bedroom flat opposite a bottle shop. After visiting friends the offender and victim drank alcohol and smoked cannabis with the victim becoming intoxicated. The offender and the victim were sleeping on a mattress on the floor in the lounge room. The victim went to bed holding her favourite teddy bear as a comforter.
8. Sometime later the offender woke the victim. He undressed himself and then undressed the victim. The offender performed cunnilingus on the victim for a short time before inserting his penis into her vagina. The intercourse lasted for about 20 minutes. The victim was aware that the offender had ejaculated as her vagina felt slimy. She was unable to go to the bathroom as the bathroom was within the bedroom of where the offender's friend was sleeping. The next morning the victim woke up and went to the toilet. There was dried semen on her underpants and her vagina felt slimy. Later that morning the offender and victim returned home.
9. The facts then deal with the events between September and October 2013 at Canberra and at Tin Can Bay in Queensland. A few months after the wedding between the offender and the victim's mother the offender suffered a workplace accident in which he broke his jaw. It was necessary for him to go to Canberra to consult with doctors. The offender asked the victim to accompany him to Canberra and told her that he had arranged to meet up with a younger step-brother.
10. The offender and victim travelled to Canberra and checked into a hotel on 16 September 2013. That night the victim was having a bath when the offender entered the bathroom naked. He got the victim out of the bath and sat her on the bathroom sink and attempted to have penile/vaginal intercourse with her but was unsuccessful because of the awkward position. He then took her to the bed where the offender laid the victim on the bed and had penile/vaginal intercourse with her. The victim is unsure of the duration of the intercourse or whether the offender ejaculated.
11. The following day the offender allowed the victim to get her lip pierced, which she thought was strange as she had been asking permission for this for some time. They met with the step brother and walked around the shops for some time. The victim begged the step-brother's mother to allow him to stay at the hotel as she knew that the offender would not do anything if he was there. The step brother did stay at the hotel that night.
12. In the September/October 2013 school holidays the family went on holiday to Tin Can Bay in Queensland. On one occasion the victim the victim was her room in the holiday house sleeping when she was woken by the offender who was naked on top of her. The offender pulled down the victim's pants and underpants and engaged in penile/vaginal intercourse for approximately 15 minutes. The victim is not sure whether the offender ejaculated.
13. The victim did not disclose the offending until she told her boyfriend in 2015. At some stage in 2015 the victim was living in a caravan in the back yard of the family home. The offender went to the caravan and tried to have the victim have sex with him. She sent a text message to her boyfriend who thereafter went to the victim's home. The offender told the boyfriend, "I know she has told you and that she said I had tried it again tonight", and "she wanted it and I didn't force her to do anything". The boyfriend threatened to go to the police if the offender tried anything again.
14. I now go to the second charge. In the afternoon of 15 September 2017 the offender the victim and her brother left the home to travel to Sydney to watch an NRL semi-final match which was to be held on 16 September 2017. About an hour after setting off they stopped so the victim's brother could go to the toilet. After this stop the victim and her brother fell asleep.
15. A few hours into the journey the offender asked the victim to tickle his arm as he was getting tired and this would keep him awake. She did as the offender requested. The offender put his left hand on the victim's right knee. He then moved his hand slowly up the victim's thigh. The victim tried to wriggle around to make the offender stop but she was unsuccessful. The offender moved his hand to the victim's crotch and rubbed her vagina on the outside of her jeans. The victim attempted to move away but the offender continued his attempts to touch her body. The victim's brother was asleep in the rear of the vehicle and woke complaining of pins and needles. The victim made a similar complaint and was able to position herself away from the offender.
16. Upon arriving at their destination the victim contacted her boyfriend through social media and informed him of what had occurred with the offender in the car. The following day the victim's boyfriend contacted the victim's mother and relayed to her what he had been told. The victim also spoke to her mother and told her what had occurred. When she went home later that day the victim's mother heard the victim in the first matter, TTA, complain about being raped but would not say who was responsible. Eventually the victim in the first matter disclosed to her mother that it was the offender. The victim in the first matter told her mother that she did not say anything earlier because the offender told her that it ruin her (mother's) life and the offender threatened to kill himself. The victim's mother contacted a police station.
17. The victim in the second matter, JT, was interviewed by police on 16 September 2017. At about 11.20pm that night when the offender returned to where they were staying he was arrested. He agreed to take part in a record of interview. The offender admitted to the conduct surrounding the offending in the second matter but denied the indecent assault.
18. On 7 March 2018 arrangements were made by police through the offender's solicitor to meet in relation to the allegations by the victim in the first matter. The offender declined to be interviewed in respect of those allegations.
19. On 18 October 2017 while in custody bail refused the offender sent the victims' mother a letter which in he asked the victims' mother to see if she could get the charges dropped. He went to say, "I am so fucking sorry for ruining all our lives I'll regret it for the rest of my fucked up life. But I don't regret our time together or the gorgeous boy we made".

Assessment

1. The Crown's representative in his helpful written submissions (MFI 1 on sentence) sets out part of the Second Reading Speech relative to the "new" section 66EA of the Crimes Act. It is tolerably plain from what was said by the Honourable the Attorney General in that speech that it was the Parliament's intention to follow or duplicate the similar Queensland legislation. The Crown also refers the court to the Queensland decision of R v SAG (2004) 147 A Crim R 301. That decision is most useful in dealing with the matters that inform the objective seriousness of the first matter. Jarrard JA (Atkinson and Philippides JJ agreeing) set out at [19] the matters that aggravate the seriousness of a matter of Maintain Unlawful Sexual Relationship. The matters are:

• The young age of the child when the relationship thereafter maintained first began;
• The period for which the relationship continued;
• If penile rape occurred during the course of the relationship (I take this to mean penile/vaginal or penile/anal rape);
• If there was unlawful carnal knowledge of the victim;
• If so, whether that was over a prolonged period;
• If the victim bore a child to the offender;
• If there had been a parental or protective relationship
• If the offender was being dealt with for offences against more than one child victim;
• If there had been actual physical violence used by the offender; and if not whether there was evidence of emotional blackmail or other manipulation of the victims.

1. Essentially adopting the Crown's submissions (paragraph [22] MFI 1 on sentence) it seems that the following factors inform the objective seriousness of an offence contrary to s 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act:

• The age of the child victim during the unlawful relationship;
• The length of time over which the unlawful relationship was maintained;
• The frequency with which sexual activity occurred;
• The type of sexual activity involved, including whether there was ejaculation. However, caution should be exercised noting the effect of the various authorities such as Bravo v R [2015] NSWCCA 302 where Hulme J (Beazley P, Johnson J agreeing) said at [42]: As was observed in R v Gavel : "[97] … It is erroneous to attempt to rank forms of sexual intercourse in some hierarchy so as to determine their objective seriousness. The objective seriousness of offending is to be determined according to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case in question: Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248 at [54]; Simpson v R [2014] NSWCCA 23 at [33]-[34]." The extent of and frequency of any physical violence, coercion, threats or admonitions not to disclose the offending conduct Whether there is a position of trust or authority e.g. parent or step parent

1. In respect of the s 66EA charge the victim TTA was 12 or 13. The unlawful relationship existed for about 7 months. There were a number of instances of penile/vaginal intercourse and clearly at least some were without the consent of the victim. The activity included penile/vaginal intercourse and fellatio. I note that the facts reflect that there was penile/vaginal intercourse on a number of occasions in her bedroom but the victim cannot remember all the details of all occasions. There was ejaculation on some occasions thereby raising at least the possibility of the victim falling pregnant. The intercourse caused the victim pain on a number of occasions. On the issue of the possibility of pregnancy the Crown draws the court's attention to the decision of KAB v R [2015] NSWCCA 55, where Wilson J (Ward JA (as her Honour then was), Simpson J (as her Honour then was making additional comments) said at [85]-[86]: "Here, her Honour gave no indication that she subsequently failed to follow that the feature of ejaculation into the vagina was of no significance in determining the gravity of count 5 crime. Nor did she ignore a concession to that effect made by the Crown, since the Crown made no reference to the risk of pregnancy or otherwise in its submissions. Her Honour simply assessed the evidence placed before her by the parties, and sentenced the applicant accordingly. There was no obligation on her Honour to draw to the attention of the parties what would ordinarily be appreciated as an obvious risk of penile/vaginal intercourse. Even if the evidence of the vasectomy the applicant had in 2004 was before the sentencing court, it is unlikely to have made any material difference to the sentence. Whilst ejaculate containing semen carries a risk of pregnancy, thus arguably increasing the seriousness of a particular offence, the depositing of ejaculate which does not contain semen or which cannot result in pregnancy is still a serious matter which is capable of increasing the gravity of an offence. That much is plain from authorities which deal with fellatio involving ejaculation into the victim's mouth: R v MS [2005] NSWCCA 322 at [16]; R v Oloitoa [2007] NSWCCA 177. Even without the risk of pregnancy ejaculation into a victim's body is an act which adds to the degradation of the victim, and can heighten the overall seriousness of the crime."
2. The extent of any finding I can make is limited to that given some of the acts were penile/vaginal intercourse with ejaculation there was the possibility of pregnancy. Even putting that to one side the possibility of pregnancy the fact of ejaculation in the victim's vagina certainly is a factor in assessing the seriousness of the matter.
3. There was a parental or protective relationship he being the victims' step-father. On the occasions in what I have described as the other country centre and Canberra the victim was under the exclusive care of the offender.
4. There was no physical violence used but there was the emotional blackmail given what the offender said to the victim about ruining her mother's life and the threat to suicide. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt from the facts that the sexual activity occurred on a regular basis. The age of the victim is well below the upper end of the age limit of 16 years that is contemplated by the section. Some of the offending occurred in the victim's home giving rise to the statutory factor of aggravation pursuant to s 21A(2)(eb) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

Victim Impact Statements

1. The court received a victim impact statement from both victims. They are at tabs 3 and 4 of the Crown tender bundles, exhibit A on sentence. The victim in count 2 read her statement via audio visual link and the boyfriend of the victim in the first count read that statement to the court in open court. Those victim impact statements, as victim impact statements often do, speak eloquently of the harm done and the emotions experienced by the victims. One can only hope that the offender was listening carefully to those statements as they were read to the court.
2. However without deprecating the contents of those statements or the effect of the offending on the victims, given the effect of the decision of R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8 I cannot use those statements to make a finding as to any factor of aggravation. Be that as it may, both offences for which the offender appears for sentence are serious.

Need for General Deterrence

1. The acts of the offender indicate a gross breach of trust given his position in the household. He used the victim in count 1 essentially as his sexual plaything while apparently being totally and utterly indifferent about his position as step-father, her age, the short and long term effects of his offending conduct on his victim or the utterly inappropriate nature of the relationship that he was continuing. In respect of the second count he took advantage of being alone with the victim in a moving motor vehicle again indifferent about the position of trust in which he was.
2. The strong need for general deterrence when dealing with offences of child sexual assault is undoubted. It goes back to at least the Crown appeal in the matter of R v Muldoon unrep. NSWCCA 13.12.1990. More recently, see for example the leading judgment of Hulme J in R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 at [179] where his Honour said: "The Crown referred to EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 at [42] where Hoeben CJ at CL said: 'General deterrence, denunciation and the protection of the community are principles of sentencing which are relevant to cases involving child sexual abuse. The concern of the courts is to send a message to those who would sexually abuse children intentionally and repeatedly that their actions will not be tolerated and that they will receive significant punishment.'"
3. Other cases include R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148 and MC v R [2017] NSWCCA 316.

Criminal History

1. The offender is now 41 years of age having been born on 20 October 1977. There are a number of matters on his criminal history however the present matters for which he appears for sentence are by far the most serious. He has been convicted of street offences, damage to property, serious driving matters, assault, contravene domestic violence order, resist police, assault police and possession of prohibited drugs. He has been sentenced to full time imprisonment and suspended sentences. However, there are no matters on his history after 2008 and there are no matters of a sexual nature on his record.
2. Mr Scragg on behalf of the offender submits (p 3 submissions, MFI 2 on sentence) that the offender does not have a significant record of previous convictions. The matters are not serious however there are a significant number of them. Given the number of matters on the criminal history despite the absence of previous like offending I am of the opinion that the offender is not entitled to any particular leniency because of his criminal history.

Subjective case for the offender

1. No oral evidence was given by or called on behalf of the offender. However, the court was favoured with an amount of written material going to the subjective case for the offender.
2. Exhibit 1 on sentence is a report from John Machlin, Psychologist. The exhibit includes a supplementary report by the author. The personal background is sent out at p 2. The offender was born a "heroin baby" in Orange and he and his sister were in a number of foster care placements. He was subject to harsh physical punishment at one of the placements. He was also subjected to sexual abuse by older boys at a group home and at a separate time by an uncle of another boy that he befriended. That man also introduced the offender to alcohol and tobacco. He became a father at 14 years of age. At 15 he went to live with his mother in Queensland.
3. These issues are also referred to in the Sentence Assessment Report (SAR), which is part of the Crown tender bundle.
4. Exhibit 3 is hand-written letter from the offender. In that letter he expands on these issues. The letter was received into evidence without objection. Although it is untested I see no reason in this case not to accept the contents when taken with the report of Mr Machlin and the SAR.
5. Given these matters I am satisfied that the principles enunciated by the High Court of Australia in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 are enlivened, reducing to some extent the moral culpability of the offender. Whilst I have no difficulty with the fact those factors are enlivened they are not present to the extent that this court sees all too frequently in central western and far western New South Wales particularly with indigenous offenders.
6. The offender commenced work in the vineyards and mining industry becoming self-sufficient at 18. For the last eight years he has had stable employment as a tyre fitter. He formed a relationship with the victims' mother in 2007.
7. Mr Machlin sets out at p 3 that the offender, "acknowledged the offences in a contrite manner and appearing to appreciate the gravity of his conduct". At p 4 the author of the report sets out that the offender said of the offending, "After time to reflect, I feel terrible…disgusted…I was the person somebody else was to me…I haven't really dealt with it until now…I was used to the abuse…I thought it was normal." The report then goes on to recount that the offender said in respect of the victim of the s 66EA(1) charge, "I can imagine the impact on her…I breached her trust, put her in the same position I was in". The offender acknowledged that his conduct was totally wrong and he said that, "I'm sorry for all of the people I've hurt". I note also that Mr Machlin records that the offender offered no dispute with the facts. At p 7 of the report Mr Machlin reports that the offender demonstrates a high level of remorse.
8. In Exhibit 3 on sentence the offender opens by saying, "I'd just like to take this opportunity to say how sorry I am to the victims and how ashamed and disgusted I am in myself for what I have done. I abused the girls' trust in the worst possible way". The author of the SAR sets out at p 3 of the report that the offender demonstrated limited insight into his offending, but also records at pp 3-4 that the offender appeared to have an understanding how his offences impacted the victims and he verbalised that they would have felt said, angry, scared and would require counselling. Further he recognised that he exploited the victims' and his now wife's trust.
9. These matters were emphasised in Mr Scragg's oral submissions at the sentence hearing. As I indicated at the sentence hearing although the offender did not give evidence given the clear statements made to Mr Machlin and the author of the SAR I am prepared to find on balance that the offender is remorseful.
10. The author of the SAR sets out at p 3 of that the offender has no prior sexual convictions, he appears to have issues with sexual self-regulation and that the offender is in the average risk category of sexual re-offending.
11. Mr Machlin at p 6 of his report sets out that the majority of the 20 recognised risk factors of the Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20) do not apply to the offender. He goes on to explain that the offender's record was "clean" from 2008, there was no prior history of sexual offending and the offender is of sound intelligence and social competency. At p 4 of the report Mr Machlin says that the offender denied any risk of reoffending.
12. Further Mr Machlin says at p 7, "Even still, restricted access to minors is warranted for the foreseeable future and he requires placement in a sex offender treatment programme to improve his insight into his offences and to moderate future risk".
13. It is not without significance that the SAR notes that since entering custody the offender has incurred seven institutional misconduct charges including "fight or other physical combat", refuse or fail drug sample, administer drugs, create or possess prohibited goods and possess drug implement. Mr Scragg put in oral submissions that the offender on the probabilities is unlikely to re-offend in a similar way or at all. The submission continued that there was an abundance of evidence that taken as a whole would suggest that the offender is unlikely to re-offend. Section 21A(3) sets out that a mitigating factor that the offender is unlikely to re-offend, not unlikely to reoffend in a similar way. Given the criminal history, despite the absence of offending since 2008, the opinion of the author of the SAR and the institutional misconduct offences I am not prepared to find on balance that the offender is unlikely to re-offend.
14. The offender has admitted his guilt in respect of these matters and acknowledges that the victims would have suffered harm. Mr Machlin at p 4 of his report sets out that the offender declared his willingness to participate in a sex offender treatment programme and a desire to investigate the reasons for his behaviour. This was emphasised by counsel in the oral submissions. Mr Machlin opines (p 7) that the remorse is a strong factor in his favour as regards future rehabilitation. With some minor hesitation I am prepared to find on balance that the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation.
15. Mr Machlin at p. 5 of his report says: "The sexual aberrations apparent in the subject offences might have been influenced by his own history of abuse but are not wholly accounted for by it. While there are compelling signs of emotional damage and aberrant functioning it is not clear that those problems at the time of his offences conformed to any specific diagnostic category according to DSM-5".
16. However he goes on to say that for much of the time since his arrest the offender has met DSM-5 criteria for an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed mood. In his supplementary report Mr Machlin makes it clear that he was not implying a causal victim-to-offender link for sexual offending. These issues are all part of the overall subjective mix.
17. Both in the written and oral submissions Mr Scragg submits that there should be a finding of special circumstances based on the long history of alcohol and drug abuse, the history of anxiety and depression set out in Mr Machlin's report and the need for ongoing counselling. The Crown opposed a finding of special circumstances maintaining that given the length of the sentence the statutory ratio would allow sufficient time for the appropriate counselling and treatment to be administered. I accept that the offender has had those issues and that he will require counselling. However, I agree with the Crown that the statutory ratio will be entirely sufficient to attend to these issues. If partially cumulative sentences are imposed then that is the only matter that would justify a finding of special circumstances in my opinion.
18. Mr Scragg put that the second offence (s 61M(2)) taken by itself would ordinarily be dealt with summarily, although I did not understand counsel to put that the offender had lost the opportunity to have the matter dealt with in the Local Court. In any event, noting the other matter it would be utterly illogical not to have the indecent assault charge dealt with on indictment at the same time.
19. Further, counsel for the offender put that it would appropriate to deal with the indecent assault charge either by way of s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act or alternatively by way of a sentence that is wholly concurrent with the sentence for the other matter. I am of the opinion that to deal with the matter by way of s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act would be totally inappropriate as it would not take into account the need for denunciation nor would it properly reflect the fact that there was a separate victim. It is the last matter that also makes it inappropriate to deal with by way of wholly concurrent sentence. I accept however that the level of partial accumulation would not be significant.
20. After receiving the papers in advance I did some research and had my Associate refer the parties to the decision of Mills v R [2017] NSWCCA 87. Both parties accepted that the offending in that matter was more serious than the matter presently under consideration. I agree with that assessment. However, as the Crown appropriately submitted, the maximum penalty applicable at the time that Mills was dealt with at first instance was 25 years imprisonment whereas the maximum penalty of the matter with which I am dealing is life imprisonment. This is indication enough of the seriousness with which Parliament considers this type of offending. It is trite that if the maximum penalty is increased then as a general proposition there should be an upward movement in sentences that are imposed.
21. I also note the contents of the three testimonial references before the court as exhibit 2. Those references indicate that the offender is remorseful and generally speak well of offender. However I cannot accept Ms Whiting when she says that the offender is a good person with values and morals and a respected member of the community. The offending for which he appears for sentence is completely contrary to that.

General Remarks

1. Both parties accept that the sentence should date from 17 January 2018.
2. I will need to give proper regard and effect to sections 3A and 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Section 3A sets out the purposes of punishment, namely: 1. to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence, 2. to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences, 3. to protect the community from the offender, 4. to promote the rehabilitation of the offender, 5. to make the offender accountable for his or her actions, 6. to denounce the conduct of the offender, and 7. to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.
3. Section 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act provides in effect that a court should not impose a sentence of imprisonment unless having considered all possible alternatives no other sentence is appropriate. Given the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the s 66EA(1) charge and maximum penalty prescribed for the indecent assault charge and the standard non-parole period prescribed for that taken with the nature of the offending it is inevitable that there must be a substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed. I did not understand counsel for the offender to submit otherwise at least in respect of the s 66EA(1) charge.
4. In all of the circumstances I am of the opinion that he appropriate starting point for the offence contrary to s 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act is 17 years imprisonment. With the deduction of 20% for the utilitarian value of the plea that results with some very minor mathematical rounding down in a total sentence of 13 years and 6 months. I am of the opinion that the appropriate starting point for the indecent assault charge is one of 2 years imprisonment, which with the deduction of 20% for the utilitarian value of the plea again with some minor mathematical rounding down results in a total sentence of 19 months imprisonment.
5. It is appropriate that there be some minor degree of partial accumulation to acknowledge the different victim and the offending at a different time. That means that there must be some minor finding of special circumstances.

Orders

1. In respect of each matter the offender is convicted.
2. In respect of the charge of Aggravated Indecent Assault contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 14 months to commence on 17 January 2018 and which expired on 16 March 2019. Thereafter there is a balance of term on parole on 5 months to commence on 17 March 2019 and which expired on 16 August 2019.
3. In respect of the charge of Adult Maintain Unlawful Relationship with a Child contrary to s 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 9 years and 9 months to commence on 17 July 2018 and which will expire on 16 April 2028. Thereafter there will be a balance of term on parole of 3 years and 9 months to commence on 16 April 2028 and which will expire on 16 January 2032. The ratio of the non-parole period to the total sentence for count 1, i.e. the charge contrary to s 66EA(1), is approximately 72%.
4. The offender will be eligible for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period specified in respect of the charge contrary to s 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act and I recommend that release.
5. The total effective sentence is one of 14 years imprisonment with time in actual custody before being eligible for release to parole of 10 years 3 months. The actual time in custody is approximately 73% of the total effective sentence.

---

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 16 September 2019