HIS HONOUR: Donald Malloy appears for sentence in respect of two offences, the first of those being that between 2 August 2000 and 31 December 2000 at Coffs Harbour, he did have sexual intercourse with KS, who was then between the ages of 10 and 16, namely, 11 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that KS was under the authority of Donald Malloy. That is an offence contrary to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900; the maximum penalty provided is ten years imprisonment and there is no relevant standard non-parole period.
The second offence is that between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2001 at Coffs Harbour, he did commit an act of indecency towards KS who was then under the age of 16 years, namely, 11 or 12 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that KS was under his authority. That offence is contrary to s 61O(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty provided is five years and there is no relevant standard non-parole period.
When being sentenced in respect of the first count, that is, sexual intercourse with a child between 10 and 16 under authority, he asks the Court to take into account a further three offences contained on a Form 1 pursuant to s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Those three offences are: first of all, an indecent assault when the complainant was aged 11, and each of the following two charges are of the same nature, although they involve different acts. Each of the offences on the Form 1 is contrary to s 61M(1) and when dealt with separately each has a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.
The facts are agreed and are as follows:
1. KS was born on 2 August 1989 to her parents and had an older brother;
2. Her parents separated when she was two years of age, and when she was five, the offender moved in with her mother, KS and her brother;
3. The offender and the victim's mother bought a house together in 1995 and they lived there with the children until 2007;
4. The offender assumed the role of father to the victim and her brother for the balance of her childhood;
5. At the relevant times, the victim was 10 to 12 years of age and the offender, 48 to 50 years of age;
6. The victim's mother worked full time as a salesperson from the time they moved into the new home. She would not arrive home until after 5pm;
7. The offender, during the relevant years, ran a milk delivery business. He would start early but be home by noon and be there when the victim and her brother arrived home from school. Her brother, however, would regularly be out playing sport in the afternoons;
8. In the summer of 2000, when the victim was 10 years of age, on an afternoon when she and the offender were home alone, they went for a swim in the family pool. She swam to him and wrapped her legs around him and he moved her around the pool and sat her on the steps. He took her hand and placed it on his erect penis for about three seconds before she pulled away, (Form 1 offence 1 s 61M(1)). He pulled her closer and kissed her on the mouth, inserting his tongue into her mouth for a couple of seconds. The victim pulled away and swam away;
9. One afternoon, sometime later when the victim was 10 or 11, they were again home alone one afternoon. The victim was in her bedroom sitting on her bed. The offender entered her room, he held her arms together above her head as she lay on the bed and he stood in front of her. She laughed, as she thought he was playing around. The offender continued to hold her arms with his left hand and with his right hand pulled her shorts and underwear down to her knees. She could see he had an erection under his shorts. The offender looked at her vagina and touched it with his thumb at which she jolted and lifted her knees up. He released her hands and left the room (Form 1 offence 2 s 61M(1));
10. Again, later in the year when she was 10 or 11, there was another occasion when the victim and the offender were home alone. They were watching television on the lounge. The offender had a blanket over his lap and pulled it away to reveal to the complainant his erect penis unclothed. He took her hand and placed it on his penis, she moved her hand up and down two times and then let go, (Form 1 offence 3 s 61M(1));
11. Sometime between her 11th birthday on 2 August 2000 and the end of that year there was another afternoon when she and the offender were home alone. She was lying on her mother's bed and the offender was lying next to her, they were watching television. The offender took the victim's hand and pulled her to a sitting position, he placed her hand on his erect penis which was sticking out of his fly; he told her to rub it and held his hand over hers and manipulated it up and down his penis four times. He let go and she completed another two rubs, then letting go herself and rolling onto her back;
12. The offender then inserted his thumb into her genitals, moving it back and forth (Count 1);
13. She said nothing, just held her breath and clenched the side of the bed. The action caused her pain so she moved to her leg and when she did so, the offender withdrew his thumb;
14. He lay on the bed next to her and she got up and went to her own room;
15. Following this incident, the victim stopped coming home after school. She would spend most afternoons at the home of a neighbour who had a daughter her age. She told this friend, in her mid-teens, why she spent so much time at her house;
16. She also, when she was 20 years of age, told the offender's adult daughter that he had molested her and told her mother around this time as well;
17. In 2014, she went to Coffs Harbour police to report the matter;
18. On 28 May 2015, the victim made a lawfully recorded phone call to the offender. She asked him to apologise for molesting her and ruining her childhood.
19. He apologised;
Complainant, "I need you to acknowledge that you molested me as a child, I don't need you to hang up and I don't need you to deny it because we both know it happened. I need to move on with my life and I need you to man up and say sorry so I can move forward."
Offender, "I am sorry, K."
Complainant, "You really fucked my childhood up."
Offender, "Yeah, I know I'm sorry, I really am sorry."
Complainant, "Why?"
Offender, "I don't know, I've got no idea, it's never happened before and it's never, never going to happen again, I have no idea."
Complainant, "I had to go to counselling for it, you stuffed me up that much, Don."
Offender, "Yeah, sorry, K, sorry."
1. On 10 June 2015, police attended the address of the accused in Toormina Road, Toormina. The accused was placed under arrest and cautioned. The accused was introduced to the custody manager at Coffs Harbour police and his rights were explained to him;
2. The offender was offered the opportunity to participate in a recorded interview with police, which he agreed to;
3. During the course of the recorded interview, the offender denied inappropriately touching the complainant at any time;
4. He admitted to exposing his erect penis to the complainant numerous times and that it was for his sexual gratification. He said that at the time he had exposed himself to the complainant about 20 times, he thought she was about 12 years of age, and that the period of time over which he exposed himself to her was probably a year.
The agreed facts indicate that while the offender admitted to exposing himself to the complainant as a child, he otherwise denied physical contact with her.
I accept that in relation to Count 2 on the indictment, being an act of indecency with a child under 16 and under authority and being what has been referred to as a "representative count" in relation to para 23, as I have referred to above, that is, a representative count of 20 occasions on which he exposed himself over a one year period to the complainant, that he is entitled to a discount of 25% as referred to in Thomson and Houlton on the basis of the utility of the plea alone, it having been admitted from the outset of the interview.
However, in relation to the offences involving physical contact, that is, Count 1 and the Form 1 offences, I note that this matter was originally committed for trial on 26 July 2016 from the Coffs Harbour Local Court. It was listed for trial on 22 May 2017 at the Coffs Harbour District Court and that trial was not reached. It was again listed for trial on 30 October 2017 and, again, not reached. It was listed again on 13 September 2018 and initially proceded on a Voir Dire. Pleas were entered on 17 September 2018 before the complainant was required to give evidence on the Voir Dire.
In my view, in relation to Count 1 and the matters to be taken into account on the Form 1, there is some utility in the plea, although belated, and the stress to the complainant was drawn out for a significant period of time. In those circumstances, I accept the Crown's submission that a discount for the utility of the plea of 10% is appropriate. The discounts that I have referred to will be provided on sentence.
In respect of Count 1, the act of penetrating the complainant's genitals by the offender's thumb caused pain to her. She was then only some 12 years of age, against the threshold age for the offence of up to 16 years. The offender was nearly 50 years of age.
The offence occurred after a series of indecent assaults over the previous months, none of which the victim had told her mother about, and from which I infer that they had the effect of emboldening the offender to progress to further acts progressing towards intercourse, safe in the knowledge that his conduct would not be revealed by the child as it had not been in the past.
I accept in the circumstances there was an element of planning, that is, ensuring the victim's mother was not at home when each of the offences, being Count 1 and the matters on the Form 1, occurred. There was in the circumstances a serious breach of trust, the offender being the victim's stepfather, and each of the offences occurred in the victim's home where she was entitled to feel safe. She was also entitled to feel safe from being sexually assaulted by her trusted stepfather. In the circumstances, I assess those offences as falling in the midrange of objective seriousness.
I note that the submission made on behalf of the offender by Mr Bolger of counsel was that the Count 1 offence falls towards the lower end of the midrange on the basis it involves digital penetration for a short period. I see no real distinction between referring to it as "falling to the bottom of the midrange" or simply "falling within the midrange". There are, of course, more serious types of sexual intercourse such as penile/genital penetration, but that is not what occurred in relation to this complainant.
As to the second offence, being Count 2 on the indictment, I note that it has been referred to as a "representative count", there being a sequence of similar offending, that is, the offender exposing himself to the complainant. KS was approximately 12 years of age at the time; she was in her own home and, again, there was a breach of trust, he being her stepfather. There are said to have been approximately 20 occasions of similar offending over the course of a year of which this is a representative count.
The Crown's submission in relation to this offence is that it falls above the midrange of objective seriousness; the defence submission is that it falls towards the midrange. In my view, taking into account that it was a representative charge, it is appropriate to find that it falls within the midrange of objective seriousness.
The victim today provided a Victim Impact Statement. She eloquently outlined the significant difficulties occasioned to her as a result of the offending conduct. It is clear from her evidence that she has been substantially affected in her life by her memory of these events. It is usually the case in relation to sexual offending against children that they fail to appreciate its significance when it initially occurs, it is only later, as they come to understand the significance of it that the full impact hits them, consequently having effects on their social and psychological development.
I have no difficulty in accepting that the complainant has been significantly affected and that she will no doubt continue to be significantly affected for a significant time, if not for the balance of her life.
In recent years, thanks to the Royal Commission into Child Abuse, it has become much clearer as to the adverse effects that offending of this nature has on the victims. I accept that the offending on this occasion has had the effects as outlined by the complainant. They are, however, within the range of what might be expected to be the resultant adverse effects of such conduct. They are in those terms not a further aggravating feature but simply the anticipated adverse outcome for the complainant. I noted that when making her statement, she referred the following:
"I've had two encounters with one of the offender's daughters where this person has spoken up or death-stared me, once yelling across the shopping centre, defaming me and calling me horrific names while I pushed my one year old in a trolley. I couldn't get out fast enough, anxiety attack in full force leaving the simplest of jobs that needed to be done that day and hiding for the next three days."
I have quoted that passage in particular because it is important that I observe that it was not the offender who was responsible for this offensive behaviour, but one of his daughters. He cannot be sentenced for the conduct of his daughter. It is, of course, however of serious concern to the Court that one of the offender's daughters could have acted in such an irresponsible and offensive manner towards the victim of her father. I note that amongst all of the material provided to me on behalf of the offender as to subjective matters there are references from each of his three daughters. It is apparent that the only daughter who is likely to have made the comments is the daughter who lives in the local area and not in Western Australia or South Australian. I will simply note that she should be thoroughly ashamed of herself for her conduct.
[2]
SUBJECTIVE MATTERS
As to the subjective matters, the Court has before it Exhibit M2. Before I list the items contained in that exhibit, I will simply observe that it does not add much to subjective matters to have the same persons repeatedly provide references contained in Exhibit M2. There is an email provided by the offender's instructing solicitor, Mr Guttentag: it appears to be an email sent from Eileen Malloy, the daughter who lives in the local area, forwarding another message. It appears to have been something composed, presumably by the offender, dated 29 September 2018 and addressed to Professor Stephen Woods. The first four paragraphs deal with changes to the offender's life and his medical conditions and his role in his eldest daughter's life. Completely unrelated to that is a paragraph which appears to be addressed to the Court. It is somewhat difficult to understand the nature of the document in those circumstances. I am sure he was not intending to make the following comment to Professor Woods,
"I am asking you to strongly consider my remorse and regret in this situation, please do not send me away. I believe I would not cope at all mentally and it would be devastating to my health also my family would be affected terribly if I were to be incarcerated especially my eldest daughter who is dealing with so much and struggles daily with severe depression. I love my family dearly and want to be there for them. Please consider me rehabilitated and a non-threat to anyone in that way. Thank you for your time."
It may be that that was addressed to Associate Professor Woods but it seems unlikely.
In addition, there is a letter to the Court dated 12 May 2017 from Nicole Malloy, a daughter of the offender, and a further reference from her dated 16 October 2018. There is also a letter to the Court dated 17 May 2017 from Eileen Malloy and a further letter to the Court from her dated 27 September 2018. In addition, there is a letter to the Court from Lee-Anne Mullins dated 1 October 2018. All of those three persons referred to are daughters from the offender's first marriage. There is also a letter dated 30 September 2018 from Jennifer Malloy, being the offender's first wife, and the mother of the three daughters that I have just referred to. There is also a letter to the Court dated 16 October 2018 from Les Bates, being a brother-in-law of the offender, a letter from Melissa Thompson, dated 27 April 2017, being a close friend of the offender's eldest daughter, Eileen; a letter from Janis Wild, being the uncle of the offender's first wife, the letter is undated. There is a further letter from Jaswir and Terry Garcha, dated May 2017; they have been family friends of the offender for a period of approximately 20 years. There is further an undated letter from Harry Parker, being a friend of the offender. In addition, the Court has been provided with a number of medical reports in respect of the offender, being a Patient Health Summary from the Toormina Medial Centre. I note that includes such illuminating information as the patient having attended for a bilateral ear syringe in 2017, or noticing numbness in his third and fourth toes in 2017. It would be helpful if those who appear for offenders did not inflict on the Court material that appears to have no real relevance to sentence. Otherwise, the material includes a number of printouts arising from blood tests.
In addition, provided is a letter from the Coffs Chest and Sleep Clinic, dated 18 January 2017, being a letter from that centre to what I take to be the offender's general practitioner. It indicates that he had been referred by his general practitioner to that centre who had offered him an initial consultation appointment, but he declined to make any appointment at that stage. What the Court is supposed to make of that, I do not know. There is a further report from TMC Medical, being short for Toormina Medical Centre. It refers to him having multiple enlarged left hilar nodes as per an attached CT scan report; he was recently in CHHC and enclosing a copy of the discharge summary, otherwise it indicates that in October 2016, he had current medication of Atacand and Panadol Osteo and some past medical history such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, abnormal LFTs, Moreton's Neuroma and that he had previously had a left total knee replacement and in 1994, a left knee wedge osteotomy. The letters are basically asking a specialist for a further opinion. In 2016, the specialist, the consultant physician Dr Ian Bruce, wrote a letter referring to the offender as follows,
"He has a persistent non-productive cough for five weeks associated with fatigue. CT of chest shows left mediastinal pretracheal and left hilar lymphadenopathy. He is never a smoker, he has been exposed to sawdust from woodworking on or off over the past 20 years and daily for the past five years. Physical examination was normal apart from obesity; in particular, the trachea was in the mid-line. The chest was clear and there were no supraclavicular or other lymphadenopathy."
It was said that there were no obvious bronchial abnormality and he had a moderate elevation of hepatic transaminases consistent with known steatohepitis. There is a further letter from the Coffs Chest and Sleep Clinic dated 19 October 2016, which refers to him having been troubled with a dry cough, and a further letter from Dr Bruce dated 17 October 2016,which summarises his current problems as left hilar lymphadenopathy, steatohepitis, hypertension, obesity and his current medication, Atacand. There is a further letter from TMC Medical, Dr Croker, dated 27 September 2018, and letters from Dr Darren Marshall, 4 February 2015, 5 March 2014 and further letters relating to what are apparently his daughter Eieen's children. The further documents that I have just referred to relate to Eileen Malloy who was said to have bilateral osteoarthritis and was consulting an orthopaedic surgeon but was advised not to have a knee replacement because she was too young for it. She is also said to suffer from depression and PTSD, having been the victim of domestic violence as well as suffering from anxiety and agoraphobia. All of the last letters that I have referred to refer to either her condition or the condition of her children being the offender's grandchildren, and, no doubt, those to whom he was referring to in relation to his assistance provided to his daughter who has some problems herself, including problems with her children.
In general, it can be said of those who have provided references for the offender, that is, his children, his ex-wife, his brother-in-law, his friends and his children's friends, that all of them hold the offender in high regard. He has been variously referred to as a good father, an honest hardworking man, well liked in the community and a longstanding businessman in the local area. While all who provided references were apparently aware of the nature of the charges against the offender, and considering their knowledge of him for a long period of time which would include the time in which he was committing the offences against the complainant, all of them, particularly his daughters and his ex-wife could be expected to be very familiar with the complainant. I note that not one of them made a single empathetic comment in relation to the complainant or even any acknowledgement of the significant distress that the offender's conduct must have caused to her.
It is unfortunately frequently the case that persons come before the Court for sexual offending against children who are otherwise regarded as being outstanding citizens to all who otherwise know them; those who otherwise know them, of course, were not present at the time of any offending because offending of this nature almost invariably takes place in private, behind closed doors, and is not revealed until many years later when the complainant becomes aware of the significance of the past conduct and the adverse effects that it is then having on the complainant. I accept that the offender is well regarded by those who are otherwise completely unaware of his offending conduct other than that what they have been told to date.
It is, of course, frequently the case that because individuals are well regarded by those around them that they have the opportunity to, in fact, commit offences of this nature.
I note in respect of the offender, that he has absolutely no criminal history and no doubt his offending in relation to the complainant came as an absolute and complete surprise to those who otherwise knew him.
In addition, to that material, there is a psychological report from Associate Professor Woods, dated 3 December 2018. I note that he has had two consultations with the offender, one on 11 May 2017 and a further assessment on 4 October 2018. Of course, on 11 May 2017, the offender had confessed to non-contact exposure of his genitals to the complainant but was in denial of any physical contact, either him against her, or having her touch him. It would be highly unlikely in those circumstances if, on the first occasion that he consulted with Mr Woods, that he confessed to him as to the offences constituting Count 1 and the Form 1 offences, so that when one reads Professor Woods' associations as to the offender expressing his remorse and contrition, as he does repeatedly in his report, one has to ask themselves the question what exactly would he have been remorseful and contrite for, as far as expressed to Mr Woods on 11 May 2017 in circumstances where he was clearly continuing to deny any physical contact as he did in the record-of-interview. Professor Woods says that when challenged as to why he eventually ceased his offending behaviour, Mr Malloy stated,
"I suddenly realised it was wrong...I wouldn't be happy if someone did it to my daughters...so I just stopped."
I note that the agreed facts appear to indicate that the reason that it stopped was because the complainant, after he had finally digitally penetrated her, made herself absent from the home at the times when she knew it would be likely the offending conduct would occur and consistently thereafter spent her time at one of her friend's homes during the hours when the offender would have completed his milk run and been home before her mother arrived.
I infer that the reason that he stopped was because the opportunity no longer presented itself; that is not of course to say that he would have continued. I do not believe that an adult male suddenly realises that conduct of this nature is suddenly wrong only after engaging in it for a substantial period.
The offender was reportedly raised in a caring family environment absent of any abuse, although he was adopted at the age of three or four months. His family resided on rural properties and he enjoyed the lifestyle. He also enjoyed sports and was competitive at sport. He commenced dating his former wife, Jenny, when he was 18 years of age and they married two years later when they learnt that she was expecting a child. As I have previously referred to, there were three children of that marriage who are now aged 45, 40 and 38. Both Eileen and Lee-Anne have young children and the offender has been providing support in particular to Eileen, due to her being divorced and suffering from symptoms of domestic abuse. Her youngest child apparently suffers from epilepsy and has learning difficulties. His daughter, Eileen, as a result of the domestic violence and abuse, reportedly suffers from agoraphobia. It is apparent that the offender continues to enjoy a good relationship with his first wife. After he separated from the complainant's mother, he initially boarded with his former wife.
He has in the past never suffered from any mental health conditions or difficulties, or required any professional mental health treatment.
At the age of 65, he is now residing alone in a rental property. He is reliant on an old age pension which is supplemented by his hobby of woodworking, that is, he makes wooden items that are sold at the local markets on weekends. At the time of this offending, he had been employed as a milkman, and as I understand it, he conducted a milk run business for approximately 22 years. He is said to have high blood pressure and diabetes and to have undergone a knee replacement: that is, both knees in 2008-2009, but is otherwise in reasonably good health with the exception of excessive weight which causes some mobility problems. He described his mental state to the psychologist when charged by the police in terms of being "a bit depressed" and characterised by intense self-recriminations and fear with chronic worry in relation to the possibility of receiving a custodial sentence. He is said to have no evidence of thought disorder or symptoms of mental illness, and his presenting mental state was however found to be "indicative of a depressed mood on a background of chronic low grade anxious dysthymia." That in lay language is to say that it was indicative of a depressed mood on a background of a mild but long term depression.
Mr Woods opines that his sense of shame and remorse in relation to his offending behaviour has manifested in a severe reactive depression. It is, of course, entirely common that persons of good repute whose criminal offending against children becomes exposed, and who are awaiting sentence, become depressed at the prospect of serving a custodial sentence. Mr Woods assessed the offender as suffering from a paedophilic disorder (with hebephilia) non-exclusive type in full remission, and an exhibitionistic disorder, again, in full remission. He also opines in relation to the development and cause of such states that "advancing age may be associated with decreasing exhibitionistic sexual preferences and behaviour."
The offender does not have any history in relation to the use of prohibited drugs nor in relation to the abuse of alcohol. He diagnosed him as having a major depressive disorder, although it appears that that is entirely reactive to the circumstances in which he now finds himself, not a depressive disorder that was current before such time as these offences were disclosed. He opines that for a variety of expressed reasons, including the period since the offending, the current absence of opportunity and because he does not suffer from a major mental illness, and is reportedly impotent and lacks any interest in sexual activity, that he is of low risk of offending.
Considering his age and his lack of any pre or post criminal history and also the fact that his offending conduct is now known to the community, I would accept that there is a low risk of the offender reoffending in future.
It has been submitted on the offender's behalf by Mr Bolger of counsel that the Court should take into consideration when sentencing the offender the fact that when released on bail on 14 April 2016 and through to today he has been on bail conditions which required him to live at particular premises and to abide by a curfew from 10pm to 6am unless in the company of his wife. I presume that was a reference to his ex-wife.
BOLGER: Yes, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: And that he was required to present himself at the front door if any police officer attended to confirm his compliance with the curfew, and that he was to report three times per week at the Coffs Harbour Police Station and surrender his passport. Those are, in fact, very common conditions of bail. In my view, they are not particularly onerous and they do not qualify as some form of quasi custody: considering his age, being required to be at home between 10pm and 6am was probably entirely consistent with his normal sleep hours.
I will, of course, have regard to the fact that he was never in breach of his bail conditions. The curfew condition was deleted after approximately 14 months.
There are repeated references in the material before me to the offender having expressed his remorse in relation to his conduct, although exactly how he expressed it on most occasions is not evident from the material. However, I am prepared to accept that the offender is, although belatedly, genuinely remorseful and contrite for his conduct. He, at least, readily confessed to the offences involving only exposure at the outset and significantly has entered a plea to the offences involving actual physical contact, although only after a protracted period of time from his arrest on 10 June 2015 until 17 September 2018, a period during which, of course, the complainant would have continued to be stressed with the thought that she may eventually be required to give evidence in Court.
The Court must take into account the utility discounts that I have previously referred to, the purposes of sentencing as referred to in s 3A of the Sentencing Procedure Act and the relevant factors in relation to each of the offences that I have previously referred to as to their objective seriousness. In relation to offences of this nature, both specific and general deterrence are important factors to take into account when determining the appropriate sentence. The Royal Commission into child abuse has made it patently obvious that both specific deterrence and general deterrence are very important factors.
Any term of imprisonment imposed must reflect the objective seriousness of the offence. In this matter, the s 5 threshold has been passed; there is no alternative other than a period of full time imprisonment, and a significant period is required to properly reflect both specific and general deterrence.
Taking all of those matters into account, I intend to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence, in which case I am required to provide an indicative sentence for each of the offences. In relation to the offence of sexual intercourse with a child between ten and 16 years of age under authority contrary to s 66C(2) and taking into account each of the three matters contrary to s 61M(1) contained on the Form 1, the indicative sentence is five years' imprisonment.
In respect of the offence of act of indecency towards a child under the age of 16 years, namely, 11 or 12 years, in circumstances of aggravation, that is, under the authority, contrary to s 61O(1), the indicative sentence is two years' imprisonment.
Mr Malloy, would you please stand?
You are convicted in relation to each of those offences. The aggregate sentence is a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. It will commence on 30 January 2018 to take into account the 310 days you previously spent in custody in respect of these matters. The non-parole period will expire on 29 January 2021. The balance of term is two years and six months. That is, a total sentence of five years six months with a three year non-parole period, and a balance of term of two years six months. The total sentence will expire on 29 July 2023. You will be first eligible for parole on the expiry of the non-parole period, that is, 29 January 2021. It will be a matter for the authorities as to whether you are released on that date or some later date. It will depend on your conduct while in custody as to whether you are released then.
I have varied the statutory relationship between the non-parole period and the balance of term on the basis of the offender's age to allow for a much more significant period to assist him in rehabilitating and returning to a useful life within the community.
HIS HONOUR: Is there anything that I omitted or error?
OLIVER: No, your Honour.
BOLGER: No, your Honour.
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: 01 March 2019