R v Reid [2016] NSWCCA 151
R v Taouk [1992] 65 A Crim R 3392
R v Thomson
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
R v Reid [2016] NSWCCA 151
R v Taouk [1992] 65 A Crim R 3392
R v Thomson
Judgment (3 paragraphs)
[1]
Judgment
Christopher Heaven appears for sentence in respect of an offence of witness agree to accept a benefit to procure the acquittal of a person of a serious indictable offence, contrary to s 321(2)(a)/324 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty provided is 14 years' imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period. When being dealt with for that offence, he asks that the Court take into account a further offence of larceny of an Apple MacBook from Cash Converters on 11 March 2019, contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act 1900.
The primary offence was committed on 9 to 24 May 2019 and he was arrested and charged on 24 May 2019. He has been in custody solely in relation to this matter since 24 May 2019. The plea of guilty having been entered at the earliest opportunity, he is entitled to 25% discount for the utility of the plea alone, as referred to in Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383. Such a discount will be provided.
The facts are agreed and are as follows:
In respect of the charge of agreeing to accept a benefit to procure the acquittal of a person of a serious indictable offence:
1. The co-offenders are Christopher Heaven and Anissa Sypher. The co accused is Tamsin Elliff.
2. Heaven and Sypher were in a domestic relationship.
3. Elliff was in a domestic relationship with Jaya Daetz.
4. Daetz has known Heaven and Sypher for some time; however Elliff only met Heaven and Sypher for the first time in February 2019.
5. At approximately 12.20am on Friday 10 May 2019, the offender Heaven was stabbed in the chest with a knife. The blade penetrated the lining of his heart and lungs. Multiple witnesses identified Daetz as the person responsible for the stabbing. At approximately 1.30am the same morning, Daetz was arrested for stabbing Heaven and conveyed to Kogarah Police Station.
6. Daetz denied committing the offence and informed police that he had been with Elliff the entire evening.
7. At approximately 3.35am the same morning, police spoke to Elliff, who said she had been with Daetz the entire evening. The information Elliff provided to police was a lie that she later admitted to in a signed statement to police. Elliff had not been with Daetz since approximately midday on Thursday 9 May 2019 and had not seen or spoken to him since then.
8. The same day (Friday 10 May 2019) Elliff found out that Daetz had been arrested for stabbing Heaven and that he was bail refused.
9. Between Saturday 11 May 2019 and Wednesday 15 May 2019, Elliff found out that Daetz's parents were going to pay $10,000 for a lawyer to represent him. That money was due to be paid to the lawyer on Friday 17 May 2019.
10. Elliff came up with the idea to use the $10,000 allocated for the lawyer to pay Heaven instead. The money was to be paid to Heaven on two conditions,
1. that he would not give a formal statement to police about the stabbing, and
2. that he would not attend court as a victim/witness.
1. On Wednesday 15 May 2019, Elliff made the offer to Sypher and Heaven. Sypher and Heaven told Elliff they would need some time to think about it. Later that same day Elliff sent Sypher the following text message:
"You home yet?
MSG me when u guys have talked about it. But try decide as quick as u can cos otherwise the lawyer will get it. The parents will send it to me and I either give it to u or lawyer by Friday" (17 May 2019).
1. Sometime between Wednesday 15 May and Friday 17 May 2019, the deal was accepted by Sypher and Heaven. At 7.42am on Friday 17 May 2019 Heaven sent the following text message to Elliff:
"It's Chris (Heaven) I stuck to my end of the deal I expect he (sic) money to be put into Anissa (Sypher) bank."
1. Approximately 30 minutes later Sypher sent the following text message to Elliff:
"Sis I'm just clarifying that the money will be sorted today, it's Friday like organised, just let me know what's going on, C (Heaven) is starting to flip check Facie" (Facebook).
1. Between Friday 17 May and Sunday 19 May 2019, numerous Facebook and SMS messages were exchanged between Sypher and Elliff regarding payment of the $10,000, with Elliff concerned that because Heaven was simply not providing a written statement to police and agreeing not to attend any potential trial that there was a lack of security in exchange for the $10,000. Sypher tried to reassure Elliff; however, Elliff then spoke to Daetz and sent the following message to Sypher on Sunday 19 May 2019:
"Elliff. Hey he (Daetz) said he needs a statement.
Cos then he can apply for bail and will get it cos there's new evidence.
...
cos there's no new evidence like he can't reapply for bail. So if there's (a) statement then he can get out.
Sypher. Ok I'm on my way to report I'll do mine (statement) swear on my life if I go n fuck up (Heaven's) will recover n isn't sorted by five I will make (Daetz's) situation look like child's play, n he's going wish right now is all he still had to worry about.
Elliff. Ha? I don't think (Daetz) needs u to be done to do one.
Just (Heaven) because (Heaven) is the victim.
Don't do (a statement) yet until I find out what (Daetz) wants ok but pretty sure just (Heaven) you don't wanna involve yourself".
1. On Wednesday 23 May 2019, Sypher and Heaven invited Elliff to their unit in Kingsgrove to discuss Daetz's new requirement that Heaven provide a statement to police in exchange for the $10,000. Elliff arrived at approximately 7pm the same day. Also present in the unit were two friends of Sypher and Heaven, Peter Schaffer and his partner, Catherine Milstead.
2. Shortly after Elliff's arrival at the unit, an argument developed over the fact Elliff had not honoured the original agreement and paid the $10,000 and that Daetz was now requiring an actual statement from Heaven telling police it was not Daetz who had stabbed him.
3. By this stage Heaven and Sypher had also become sceptical that Elliff even had $10,000 and told her to "get the fuck out of the unit", because she was "full of shit".
4. Elliff, in an attempt to calm the situation and keep the situation alive transferred $500 using her mobile phone to Sypher. Sypher confirmed to Elliff that she had received the sum.
5. After some further discussion between the parties, Heaven told Elliff that he was not prepared to provide a statement to police and that the deal was off. He told Elliff "that his life was worth a lot more than $10,000".
6. Around the same time, Peter Schaffer started talking to Elliff about $30,000 that Daetz owed him (which was most likely a drug debt). Elliff did not have that kind of money and became increasingly scared that she may be physically harmed if she remained in the unit, so shortly thereafter she fled the unit and ran to the nearby Kingsgrove Hotel. (I note that that appears to have nothing to do with this offender).
7. Hotel security called the police, who arrived a short time later.
[2]
POLICE INVESTIGATION
1. Later that evening Elliff provided a nine page statement to police in which she (falsely) claimed
1. It was Sypher who had come up with the idea to use the $10,000 to pervert the course of justice by giving it to Heaven.
2. When she went to the unit she was barricaded in by a lounge that had been moved in front of the door.
3. Sypher threatened to cut her unborn baby from her stomach with a screwdriver if she did not give her the $10,000.
4. Schaffer also threatened to harm her if she did not give him $30,000 and that he would have her working in a brothel to pay off Daetz's drug debt.
1. As a result of this statement, Sypher and Heaven were arrested early the following morning. After being cautioned and prior to being taken to St George Police Station, Sypher provided police with the following account:
1. Daetz's parents had given Elliff $10,000 to bribe Heaven so he would not provide a statement to police.
2. Heaven went along with it and told Elliff that he needed the money for medical bills.
3. All this was recorded on Facebook.
4. Elliff came to their unit and she told Elliff "Look you're from the North Shore, next time you want to fucking play games and you want to walk into my house and try to buy my partner's life for $10,000, you should think twice, man, if you know what I mean."
5. Daetz owes a sum of money to Schaffer and that is why Elliff got scared to know.
6. Things started getting a little bit heated.
7. That the two of them went for a chat in the bathroom and she told Elliff to get out of there, which she did.
1. Both Sypher and Heaven were then conveyed to St George Police Station, where at approximately 2.50am they were both charged with demanding property in company with menaces.
2. Shortly after 1pm that same day, 24 May 2019, Sypher voluntarily participated in an ERISP where she provided the same account given to police earlier that morning, adding
1. It was Elliff who had approached Sypher and Heaven with the offer of $10,000 so Heaven would not give a statement to police.
2. She was prepared to go to the police station and provide a statement stating that Daetz did not stab Heaven.
3. She never threatened to harm Elliff or her unborn child.
4. She told Elliff to "Get the fuck out of the unit, because it was all a fucking joke", and Elliff then offered to transfer $500 to show that she really did have $10,000, so she transferred $500 through to Sypher's account.
1. During her ERISP, Sypher also showed police her Facebook conversations (referred to above at para 15) with Elliff.
2. Sypher was subsequently refused bail and remanded in custody.
3. That same day Heaven also voluntarily participated in an ERISP and provided the following account to police:
1. Daetz stabbed him in the chest.
2. He had not yet given a written statement to police about the stabbing, but had provided a video statement to detectives when he was in the ICU.
3. Elliff had been given $10,000 by Daetz's parents to either pay for a barrister for Daetz or to give him to keep quiet about the stabbing.
4. This was all captured in a Messenger conversation between Sypher and Elliff.
5. It was Elliff who had approached them offering the $10,000.
6. Elliff had come to the unit to discuss this.
7. When Elliff came to the unit she demanded he provide a statement to police.
8. He explained to Elliff that if he was to give a police statement it would be silly and would jeopardise everything.
9. He told Elliff he was not going to go through with it, telling her "his life is worth a lot more than $10,000".
10. He never demanded any money from Elliff
11. Elliff likely became scared when talking to Schaffer and Milstead, and left the unit as a result.
1. Heaven was subsequently refused bail and remanded in custody.
2. On 28 May 2019, police requested Facebook messages from Elliff detailing the conversations she had had with Sypher. That same day Elliff emailed through a very small subset of the conversations between herself and Sypher, deliberately omitting any messages that inculpated her in the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
3. On 3 June 2019, Schaffer was arrested and also charged with demanding property in company with menaces. Schaffer voluntarily participated in an ERISP in which he provided the following account to police:
1. He and his wife Catherine Milstead went around to the unit that evening.
2. Sypher and Heaven were there.
3. He found out Heaven and been stabbed - Heaven showed him the stab wound to his chest.
4. "Some chick showed up" - "she was short and fat."
5. That "pretty much off the bat" they were discussing $10,000, that she was owing the $10,000 to Heaven to do a statement...her boyfriend...withdraw a statement...
...Sypher, .that's fine...get paid get...please has to be done, so...even after...parents the...I know that much they're the ones who are offering...or some shit to get this over and done."
1. The bloke's parents wanted to see a copy of the statement.
2. The chick was smoking ice in the unit.
3. The chick stole $300, his house keys and mobile phone from the table.
4. He went to the pub to get his property back from the chick.
5. He denied making any threats towards Elliff.
6. He never saw a screwdriver in Sypher's hands.
1. Schaffer was subsequently bail refused and remanded in custody.
I note in respect of the agreed statement of facts signed by a solicitor from the Office of the DPP and Mr Hall on behalf of the offender, that there is some material which may well have been relevant for the prosecution, or the agreed facts in relation to Sypher, Elliff, Daetz or Schaffer, which in my view, should not have been contained in these agreed facts. This matter has come before me on short notice this morning. I will have regard on sentence only to those matters which are relevant to this offender, even though on his behalf the facts in their total have been accepted as agreed. In essence, the offender, having been stabbed with a knife which penetrated the lining of his heart and lungs on 10 May 2019, subsequently agreed that he would not provide a formal statement to police about the stabbing and that he would not attend court as a victim/witness to assist Mr Daetz in avoiding conviction for a serious indictable offence, which was originally charged by the police in respect to Mr Daetz of reckless wounding contrary to s 35 of the Crimes Act, which carries a maximum period of seven years' imprisonment, thereby qualifying as a serious indictable offence.
In fact, there was a payment made of $500 as a matter of good faith to try and keep the deal alive in the circumstances, when through Elliff, Daetz was requiring a greater degree of cooperation than had been the subject of the original agreement, that is that the offender would provide a statement which exculpated Mr Daetz entirely rather than simply not providing any statement and making himself unavailable as a witness or victim. The offender had agreed to a benefit intending to procure the acquittal of Daetz for the sum of $10,000, although as a result of the change of the arrangement it never occurred and only $500 was received of the promised amount. My view of the facts is that the offender only withdrew from the arrangement because it had not been honoured as entered into, and because the terms were sought to be changed unilaterally by Daetz through Elliff.
The offence committed by Mr Daetz was a serious form of an offence of reckless wounding.
Offences of this nature must be regarded as serious, as is indicated by the fact that a maximum period of 14 years' imprisonment is provided. It has frequently been remarked, not only in the Attorney General the Honourable John Dowd's second reading speech on the introduction of the relevant legislation, but in many cases that have been before the courts, particularly in relation to observations by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, that the offence of perverting the course of justice is an offence that recognises the importance of protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system as offences contrary to this provision strike at the heart of the judicial system, (R v Kim NSWCCA (5 September 1996 Unreported); R v Taouk [1992] 65 A Crim R 3392.
In Marinellis v R [2006] NSWCCA 307 it was noted by Simpson J that sentences imposed in relation to offences of this nature in the past have failed to properly match their seriousness.
The offender's criminal history,
A New South Wales Department of Corrective Services Conviction Sentence and Appeals Report,
A Sentence Assessment Report under the hand of Eric Spark, dated 12 March 2020, it being part of exhibit SA.
A letter from the offender's elderly mother, Robyn Heaven, dated 9 March 2020, she being in her early seventies, and in her letter pleading for him to be released from custody so that she could have the benefit of his assistance and asserting that he is sorry for what he has done and has learnt his lesson. Attached to her letter is a patient health summary, indicating that consistent with her age, she is taking a raft of medications for her various medical problems.
In addition there is a transcript of academic record from TAFE as at 16 December 2019, indicating the offender had been found competent in relation to safety testing of electrical cord connected equipment.
A further statement of attainment from TAFE, dated 11 December 2019, indicating that he had attained competency in a number of subjects, part of what is referred to as "ground maintenance planting".
A certificate from the John Morony Correctional Centre, being an award for demonstrating positive attitude with a willingness to participate in a polite and respectful manner, dated 22 August 2019.
A certificate of attendance for a one day program titled "Health Survival Program" on Monday 26 August 2019.
Finally, a certificate of completion of having successfully graduated from the "Prisoners' Journey a program of Prison Fellowship International", it clearly being a program of some religious orientation. I note from Mr Hall's submissions, apparently Catholic.
Subjective matters are drawn from that material.
I note the offender has not given evidence on sentence.
In addition there is some subjective material referred to in the submissions of Mr Hall on behalf of the offender, including requests that the Court should take into account the offender's medical condition at the time of the offence, his financial position and his heavy use of the drug ice:
"I ask your Honour to take into account the offender's medical condition at the time of the offence, his financial position, his heavy use of the drug ice. He almost died and was released from hospital only after five days. In addition he was heavily medicated and suffering from withdrawals from ice. He was also in dire financial straits. His state of mind was fragile. When the offer of money was made to him he readily agreed, although he had already made a statement to the police. He did not think it through. If he had, he would have realised he could not do what was agreed to. When the money was not forthcoming, he withdrew from the agreement. The negotiations had been mainly between Anissa Sypher and Tamsin Elliff, it is doubtful if the agreed money would have been paid."
I accept that the offer was made and accepted at a time shortly after the offender had been released from hospital. There is, in fact, no evidence that he was in any way at the time of accepting the offer heavily medicated or suffering from withdrawals from ice; or that he was in dire financial straits or that his mind was fragile. The fact that he did not think through what he was doing, if correct, does not diminish the significance of the offending. It is the equivalent of saying if an offence is committed in an incompetent or unthinking fashion it somehow reduces the degree of moral culpability of the offender, a premise which I do not accept. I note that the content of Mr Hall's submissions were very similar in nature to what he put from the bar table on the last occasion that the matter was before Woods ADCJ, and in relation to which the then Crown, Mr Lever, made oral submissions very much alike to the submissions made today by the current Crown dealing with the matter, Mr Waldman.
I note that the offender's partner was Ms Sypher. The Sentence Assessment Report indicates that prior to his arrest he had been living with his mother in the Mascot area, but frequently staying with Ms Sypher in the preceding 12 months, a relationship which he described to the sentence assessment officer as "toxic". It is, however, indicated that they have maintained regular contact through the mail while he has been in custody.
He has apparently not had any fulltime employment in the past four years. At the time of the offending, he was in receipt of Centrelink New Start Allowance benefits which were his primary source of income.
Although he has only a single juvenile offence of common assault in 2000, he has a lengthy history of offending involving assaults, illicit drugs, driving, domestic violence and theft. In addition, one offence of escape police custody. He has had at least six recorded institutional misconduct charges for disobedience, violence, property damage and possession of prohibited goods.
[3]
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: 10 September 2020
Simpson J in Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 88 said:
"The sentences, the subject of the statistics, do not appear to reflect the serious view this Court has repeatedly and consistently expressed concerning the gravity of offences of this kind."
and referred in particular to the cases of Taouk and Marinellis as well as R v Einfeld [2009] NSWSC 119 and Einfeld v R [2010] NSWCCA 87. Her Honour's observations were later endorsed by Hoeben CJ at CL with Hulme and Holmes JJ agreeing in Reid [2016] NSWCCA 151 at [45].
Relevant to the question of objective seriousness is the following matter, that is, whether the offender was the instigator of the act. I accept that the instigator, on the material before the Court, was Tamsin Elliff, working in conjunction with or for the benefit of Daetz, the person responsible for injuring the offender. Also relevant is the nature of the benefit or reward that the offender received or was to receive. As I have referred to, the offender was to receive $10,000, and $500 was in fact received into the account of Sypher. In my view, it is not relevant in terms of the seriousness of the offence that the agreement later broke down, and was never completed. The relevant fact is that the offender agreed for a significant sum of money to be paid to him in order to pervert the course of justice.
Also relevant is the nature of the serious indictable offence it was intended to achieve an acquittal of, and that was an offence of recklessly wounding contrary to s 35 of the Crimes Act, which has a maximum penalty of seven years. I accept that the maximum penalty of seven years places this matter towards the lower end of offences contemplated by s 324; however, this was in my view a relatively serious example of such an offence given that the knife blade penetrated Heaven's lungs and the lining of his heart.
Also relevant is the role and importance of the witness to the proceedings. Clearly, the offender as the victim was a key prosecution witness. Also relevant is the degree of planning or premeditation. Although the offer was an unexpected one and not invited, there was clearly consideration given to accepting the offer as it was not accepted immediately. That it was subsequently accepted indicates that there was consideration by the offender of the seriousness of what he was being asked to do and that he had turned his mind to the benefit that might accrue to him if he accepted, that is $10,000. The offer itself may have been unexpected and perhaps opportunistic, but its acceptance was contemplated and considered before being accepted.
As to the failure of the plan, in my view, the offender eventually withdrew his cooperation because of the requested change to the agreed arrangement required before he would achieve payment of the full $10,000. Not providing a formal statement and making himself unavailable to give evidence as the victim/witness is in my view significantly different to providing a deliberately false statement to police exculpatory of the offender Daetz, and which would have been appreciated by the offender Heaven as being considerably more risky for him to participate in.
Taking all of those matters into account, I accept the Crown's submission that the matter falls within the mid-range of objective seriousness.
As to subjective matters, before the Court is the following:
As previously indicated, the Court has been asked to take into account an offence on a Form 1 of larceny contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act. As previously noted, there was an aggravating circumstance in relation to that offence in that he had been released on parole in respect of a raft of offences, dealt with on 12 March 2018, of possess prohibited drug, goods suspected of being stolen, locked motor vehicle, larceny, goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen, larceny value more than $5,000 and less than $15,000, goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen and a further goods suspected of being stolen in or on premises. The sentences in respect of those charges were specified to commence on 28 November 2017, that is, they were backdated to take account of time in custody when imposed on 12 March 2018. The non-parole period expired on 27 September 2018 and he was released on parole on that date. However, the parole was not due to expire until 27 March 2019. The larceny offence was committed on 11 March 2019, that is, some two weeks before the parole period in respect of the offence of larceny in aggravating circumstances was due to expire. However, by the time he committed this offence between 9 and 24 May 2019, the balance of term had expired. Although the larceny has been taken into account on the Form 1, and it would have had a maximum available in the Local Court of two years' imprisonment it is still relevant to have regard to the fact that it was aggravated by being committed while on conditional liberty.
In respect of offences which strike at the heart of the criminal justice system it is important that the sentence imposed reflects both general and specific deterrence. The offender's extensive criminal history, even though it does not include any like offences, indicates that he has over the years had little regard for complying with the law, but, of course, he has deprived himself of the benefit of any amelioration on sentence that might be accorded to him by having been of good character in the past - that is, of course, relevant to specific deterrence General deterrence requires, in my view, the imposition of a significant sentence for the purposes of deterring others who might seek to pervert the course of justice by committing offences such as this.
In Cross v R [2016] NSWCCA 214 at 96 Garling J (Beazley P and Hidden JA agreed) stated:
"…an offence against ss 323 and 324 of the Crimes Act is a serious one. The integrity of justice is placed at risk if individuals arrogate to themselves the role of determining what evidence will or will not be given in court, and whether that evidence will or will not be truthful in circumstances where the individual is seeking to promote their own self-interest."
I accept that there is a long line of cases which indicate that sentences imposed in relation to offending of this nature must have a strong deterrent value.
While the offender's mother may wish for his return and assistance, I note that she has the assistance of her daughter.
As to remorse, contrition, rehabilitation and reoffending, I note that the Sentence Assessment Report states that during the interview he
"expressed a mixture of pro and anti-social attitudes... He initially appeared to minimise his involvement of the offence through placing blame on his co-offender (Ms Sypher) and made statements such as "this time I didn't really do anything"...In the following interview, "Mr Heaven verbally acknowledged his involvement in the offence and stated that he takes responsibility for his part in in the events...Mr Heaven stated that he can now recognise that his partner is indeed an influence and will prioritise his rehabilitation before their relationship" He is said to have expressed some insight into the impact of his offending, in the sense that if others did what he did "bad people would go unpunished".
Mr Hall, in his written submissions and his oral submissions before Woods ADCJ, indicated that the offender was affected by ice at the time of committing the offence. There is, however, no evidence that that was the case. The Sentence Assessment Report includes the following as to substance use: "Mr Heaven stated that he was not affected by illicit substances at the time that the offence occurred".
I am unable to find in the material before me any acceptable evidence of genuine remorse or contrition. A plea of guilty in itself does not necessarily reflect remorse or contrition. In my view, the plea of guilty in this case can more appropriately be referred to as reflecting the strength of the Crown case. Mr Hall has submitted that the offender's use of prohibited drugs has in some way contributed to his commission of the offence. I am unable to find that the offender's use in the past of prohibited drugs, which is referred to in the Sentence Assessment Report as "ice recreationally perhaps one a fortnight" has anything to do with his commission of this offence. I note that as to risk assessment, he is said to be at a medium-high risk of reoffending, according to the Level of Service Inventory. That is consistent with his past criminal history and his commission of this offence. His prospect of rehabilitation must be regarded as guarded.
I have taken all of those matters into account, including the utility discount referred to in determining the appropriate sentence. I have also taken into account the view expressed by Simpson J as to the fact that sentences imposed in relation to matters such as this rarely seem to reflect the significant penalty provided by the legislature as the maximum.
I have also had regard to the fact that it is necessary to take into account actual sentences that have been imposed (even if referred to by Simpson J as, in effect, inadequate) as being relevant to the determination of sentence in this matter.
Having taken all of those matters into account, Mr Heaven is convicted of the offence of witness agree to accept benefit to procure acquittal of a person of a serious indictable offence contrary to s 321(2)(a)/324 of the Crimes Act. I have also taken into account in sentencing for that offence the offence of larceny contrary to s 117, as contained on the Form 1.
For the benefit of others, I would indicate that in the absence of the plea of guilty, I would have imposed a term at the starting point of the head sentence of five years. After applying a 25% discount the term of sentence is three years, nine months. In the circumstances of this matter, including in particular the offender's past history of periods of custody for a large number of offences for which he has been dealt with in the past, I am unable to find special circumstances, and accordingly the statutory relationship between the non-parole period and the full term of sentence will apply. The non-parole period is accordingly two years, nine months and 21 days which represents 75% of three years and nine months. The sentence will commence on the day the offender went into custody, being 24 May 2019. He will be first eligible for parole on 16 March 2022. The balance of term is 11 months and seven days. The full term of the sentence will expire on 23 February 2023.
Mr Heaven, you have spent a number of periods of time in custody in the past and in those circumstances I know it is entirely unnecessary to explain this to you, but I am sure you appreciate that if you wish to be released at the earliest possible time, which would be on or about 16 March 2022, you will need to conduct yourself appropriately while in gaol so as to encourage the authorities to want to release you. The commission of breaches of prison discipline will adversely impact on the prospect of you being released on that date. I have no doubt you are aware of that fact.
Is there any particular matter, Mr Hall or Mr Crown, that I have omitted to refer to which I should have?
HALL: No, thank you, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Crown, are you still there?
WALDMAN: Sorry, your Honour, no, there is nothing.