Anthony Roberts appears for sentence in respect of five offences. There are three offences of indecent assault upon CC at various times between 1 December 1973 and 30 June 1974. Each is contrary to s 76 of the Crimes Act, and the maximum penalty provided at the time of the offences was a term of imprisonment for five years. There was in the 1970s no relevant standard non-parole period.
In relation to each of those offences, I also note that the sentencing process is affected by the recent legislative amendment introducing s 25AA of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which requires a Court sentencing an offender for an historic child sexual offence to sentence "in accordance with the sentencing patterns and practices at the time of sentencing" and also to have regard to the trauma of sexual abuse as understood at the time of sentencing. I note that in child sexual offences, defined broadly as sexual offences committed against a person who was under 16 years of age at the time of the offence, that section took effect immediately upon proclamation. The two further offences are also indecent assaults upon CC at various times between 1 January 1978 and 30 September 1979.
In relation to the first three offences, the complainant was approximately 13 years of age at the time, and in relation to the last two offences that I have referred to, she was approximately 18 years of age, meaning that s 25AA does not apply. However, the sentencing regime had been the subject of amendment in the intervening period between June 1974 and December 1978, the penalty having been increased where the female was over the age of 16 years to a maximum term of imprisonment of four years, which in the circumstances applies to each of the fourth and fifth matters.
The matters came before the Court for trial commencing on 15 August 2018 together with a further charge in relation to a separate complainant, being a sister of CC. At the outset of the trial, the offender entered pleas of guilty to all five of the matters that I have referred to. The remaining count on the indictment, in relation to CC, was the subject of a trial in respect of which the jury was unable to agree, and that matter has been listed for further trial as I understand it in June of this year.
It is relevant that I note that here, because it is important that I indicate that in sentencing the offender in relation to the matters that he has pleaded guilty to, I will not in any way take into account the further allegation.
In relation to Counts 4 and 5, i.e. the indecent assaults upon CC between January 1978 and 30 September 1979, I note that there is attached to each of those a further offence contained on separate Form 1. Each of those Form 1 offences attached to Count 4 and 5 are further offences of indecent assault in relation to CC.
The pleas of guilty having been entered on the first day of an allocated trial period alleviated the need for the complainant to give evidence in relation to those particular offences for the purpose of the sentence proceedings. The pleas were very belated, but there was however some utility in the plea. I will allow a 10% discount for the utility of the plea alone in those circumstances and such a discount has been applied to the sentences that will later be imposed.
I further note, before I deal with the facts, that although the pleas of guilty were entered on 15 August 2018, when the matter returned before me on 3 May 2019 - the delay having been not caused by the offender in any way but by some communication difficulties in respect of obtaining a Sentence Assessment Report from the Victorian authorities, and certain failures of communication in that regard causing at least two delays before the matter returned before me on 3 May 2019 - at that time the offender was re arraigned on an amended indictment to deal with a technical difficulty in relation to how the original charges had been expressed, and their failure to refer to the age of the complainant.
Having agreed to the amendment, the offender re-entered pleas to what were essentially the same counts, but re expressed. I regard the pleas as having been entered on the first day of trial, and it is to his credit that it was accepted that it was appropriate to again enter pleas to the amended charges.
The offender was born on 28 September 1950 and he is accordingly now 68 years of age. The facts have been agreed and are as follows.
CC was born on 2 November 1960. She had an older sister, MC, who was born in February 1953. They lived with their parents and siblings in an area of Lakemba now known as Roselands.
In the late 1960s, MC met the offender. In June 1970, she gave birth to their first child, and in October 1970 they married. Their second child was born in March 1973.
[2]
COUNT 1 INDECENT ASSAULT IN LAKEMBA
In 1973, CC started Year 7 (known then as Form 1) at high school. During the year, she attended personal development classes, and later asked her older sister, the offender's wife, about the changes to the male body during puberty. Her older sister suggested that CC ask the offender.
On an evening in December 1973, CC was at the family home of her sister and the offender, then babysitting their two children. CC enquired of the offender about the changes to boys during puberty. The offender told her that the best way to understand the changes was through "hands on experience".
The offender took CC's hand and began rubbing his groin area outside his shorts. CC tried to pull away but the offender used his hand over hers and forced her to stroke his penis. He told her this was the difference between males and females. He then took her hand and placed it inside his pants and wrapped her hand around his penis and pulled her hand in a downward motion. CC wanted to stop but the offender insisted nothing bad would happen. He continued to use CC's hand to masturbate for about five minutes. His wife arrived home, and before she walked inside, the offender removed CC's hand from his penis and went into the bathroom (Count 1).
At the time of these offences, the offender was 23 years of age and CC was 13 years of age.
[3]
COUNTS 2 AND 3 - INDECENT ASSAULTS AT LAKEMBA
Around May 1974, CC was alone in her family's residence during the school holidays when the offender arrived unannounced. CC and the offender were in the kitchen when the offender asked her if she still wanted to find out the difference between males and females.
Without waiting for an answer, the offender pulled CC in close, took her hand and began to rub his groin over his pants with her hand. He then loosened his pants and forced her hand down into his pants and told her to touch and hold his penis. The offender had an erection. CC tried to pull away, but the offender held her shoulder with his other hand and used his right hand to keep her hand on his penis. This lasted for about two minutes (Count 2).
On another occasion during the same school holiday period, the offender again attended CC's family residence and forced her to hold his penis and rub it in an up and down motion. On this occasion, he told her that it was best to keep this a secret and that others would not understand how special she was to him (Count 3).
At the time of these offences, the offender was 23 years of age and CC was 13 years of age.
[4]
CONTEXT EVIDENCE
During 1974, CC went through puberty and her body began to change. The offender told her that it was nice to see her "developing" so quickly, and it was good to see the "tomboy disappearing." He also suggested that he would like to see if her breasts were real.
The offender would come up behind CC and put his arms around her to fondle her breasts then lower his hand to touch her genital area through her clothing. This was done quickly when no one was watching. While doing so, the offender commented that CC made him feel good; he also pressed his pelvic area against her pelvic area when hugging her goodbye.
1The offender indecently assaulted CC on other occasions during the period of the indictment, at her residence and at his residence, with an increasing degree of force. On at least one occasion, the offender told CC that if she did not do the things that he asked, he would tell everyone what she had been doing.
In 1975, the offender and his family moved to Queensland for his employment with the Australian Army.
On 4 November 1977, the offender's wife gave birth to their third child, a male.
[5]
COUNT 4 AND FORM 1 - INDECENT ASSAULTS AT BANKSTOWN
At some time during 1978, the offender's family returned to Sydney and began living at Yagoona.
In 1978, CC bought an old Volkswagen sedan. The offender was a mechanic and would occasionally help fix the car when it broke down. The offender would pick up the car and take it away to be fixed before returning it to CC.
On one occasion in late spring in 1978, the offender picked CC up from her home and drove to the Bankstown area to pick up her car. When they arrived the offender told her the gates were locked and that they would need to wait for his friend to unlock them. While in the car, the offender held her by the shoulder and began to fondle her breasts under her shirt and bra (Count 4). The offender then tried to kiss her but she turned away.
The offender then said it was his turn. He pulled down his shorts and put CC's hand on his penis. Before he got an erection, CC pulled away and told him it was enough. The offender stopped and promised CC that it would not happen again. The offender pulled up his shorts and drove CC to his home where CC's car was parked. (Form 1 to be taken into account in respect of Count 4).
At the time of these offences, the offender was 28 years of age, and CC was either close to being 18 or had just turned 18.
[6]
CONTEXT EVIDENCE
In late 1978, CC completed the High School Certificate and wanted to take a friend to a party. The offender insisted on checking the car and asked her to bring it around for that purpose. CC did so and the offender drove around the block before he pulled into an isolated place. He leant over, trying to kiss CC. She said, "No" and reminded him of his promise. The offender agreed but nonetheless reached across and grabbed CC's genitalia through her clothing before driving her back to his house.
[7]
COUNT 5 AND FORM 1 - INDECENT ASSAULTS AT YAGOONA
In mid-1979, the offender contacted CC and asked her to come over because his wife needed help. When she arrived, only the offender was home. CC told him she was leaving. The offender said, "No, you are not." The offender restrained CC and took her into his bedroom and pushed her onto the bed on her back.
CC began kicking and screaming and the offender laughed. The offender continued to restrain CC. He straddled her on the bed, undid her tracksuit jacket and pulled up her T shirt and bra. He fondled and kissed her breasts (Count 5). He asked CC if she enjoyed it but she froze and said nothing. The offender then massaged her genital area through her clothes (Form 1). When she asked him to stop, he laughed at her and removed her tracksuit pants and underpants.
CC tried to scream but the offender placed his hand over her mouth. He told her no one was home and the traffic outside would drown out any noise. He lay on top of her on the bed and she began to cry. The offender moved to the end of the bed, removed his T shirt and pulled down his pants to reveal his penis.
CC challenged the offender. She said he was about to rape her and that she would no longer keep his dirty secret. Eventually the offender walked out of the bedroom. He returned a short time later and was clothed. CC quickly dressed herself and drove home.
At the time the offender was 29 years of age, and CC was 18 years of age.
The Court is required to assess the objective seriousness of offences for the purpose of sentencing. It is important to note from the outset in relation to each of the five offences in respect of which he is to be sentenced, and also in relation to the two matters contained on the Form 1, that they were all contrary to s 76 of the Crimes Act 1900. However s 76 of the Crimes Act in the relevant period, that is between 1 December 1973 and 30 September 1979, was significantly different to offences of indecent assault as currently provided by the legislation, the difference being that in the 1970s indecent assaults on females included significantly more serious conduct that is not now included in the like section. That is, indecent assaults included acts of digital penetration of the female genitalia as well as other acts that are now defined as sexual intercourse, such as fellatio and cunnilingus.
In each of Counts 1, 2 and 3, the offending conduct consisted of the offender taking the victim's hand and placing it on his penis, and using her hand to masturbate him. The incidents were in effect isolated, and there was other uncharged conduct, including rubbing her breasts and groin through her clothes. The victim, on the evidence, would appear to have been a pre-pubescent female at the time, coming from a religious and cloistered family.
I accept the submission made by Mr Johnson on behalf of the offender, that in the circumstances of the range of offences which were covered by s 76 in the 1970s, while any sexual misconduct towards a 13 year old is to be regarded as very serious, particularly where it is by a substantially older offender, that it is appropriate to regard the objective seriousness in each case as being well below the midrange of offending encompassed by that section.
It has been submitted by the Crown that the offending conduct constituted a breach of trust as referred to in s 21A(2), relating to the aggravating circumstance of offences committed in breach of trust. The offender was part of a family group. He had, as a result, opportunistic access to the complainant and took advantage of that opportunistic access, but I am of the view that it does not fall within the aggravating circumstances of a breach of trust, as referred to in the relevant section - as referred to in Henderson v R (2016) NSWCCA 8 at (52) (57) per Hogan CJ at CL.
Each of those offences occurred either in the complainant's family residence or in the offender's residence shared with the complainant's older sister, that is, in their home. It is a very common feature in relation to offences of this nature, but particularly in relation to children, that they occur in the child's home, or in a relative's home that the child is visiting. I do not regard that fact as having any significant relevance in terms of aggravation in the circumstances.
In relation to Counts 4 and 5, and the two Form 1 offences, these occurred when the victim was approaching 18 or had turned 18. Count 4 involved the fondling of the victim's breast under her clothing (Count 4) and placing her hand on his penis (Form 1 to Count 4). They also involved some context evidence, being the occasion when he fondled her genitals while driving her back to her house, in late 1978.
There was a hiatus of offending between 1974 and 1978 in relation to the complainant, this being a period when the offender was serving a period of military service in Queensland. At the time of the offending relevant to Counts 4 and 5 and the Form 1 offences, the victim was no longer a child.
I accept in respect of Count 4 that the fondling of her breasts under her bra is at the lower end of the range of objective seriousness in respect of s 76 offences in the 1970s.
However, in respect of Count 5, the victim was restrained by force. He straddled over her on the bed, he fondled and kissed her breasts after exposing them and removed her tracksuit pants and underpants. In addition, at the time he massaged her genital area through her clothing, being the Form 1 offence. I accept that the offending on that occasion must be regarded as more objectively serious as it involved force and restraint, as well as ignoring the protests of the complainant. Fortunately, although he had not been deterred by her crying before he pulled down his pants and revealed his penis, he was deterred when she challenged him by her referring to "rape" and saying that she would no longer keep his "dirty secret".
I accept in the circumstances that the objective seriousness of the offending in relation to Count 5 falls in the mid-range of objective seriousness. I include of course in that the fact of his rubbing of her genital area.
In respect of Counts 4 and 5 and the Form 1 offences relevant to each, the Court is required to sentence according to the sentencing principles as they were in the 1970s and the range which was then appropriate, as s 25AA of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act does not apply due to the age of the complainant.
R v MJR [2002] NSWCCA 129, MPB v R [2013] NSWCCA 213 are cases that provide guidance for sentencing in circumstances of historic offending and where sentencing practices have changed by increasing penalties in the intervening period. I have not been provided with any relevant cases by either of the parties from which any range of sentencing might be established, or with any relevant statistics as to sentencing for offences of this nature in the 1970s.
I have, however, perused the statistics available on the Judicial Information Research System (JIRS). The statistics are, in relation to s 76 offences committed in the 1970s, extremely limited, and I have not found it to be of any real assistance. I accept that the sentencing practices at that time would have involved the determination of a non-parole period which would be in the usual range of 33% to 50% of the head sentence.
CC gave a Victim Impact Statement which eloquently and appropriately outlined the serious nature of the effects of the offending against her. Clearly the offending conduct adversely affected her in significant ways during her childhood and that effect has continued during her adult life. I have no doubt that it will continue to have an adverse impact on her enjoyment of life as is inevitably the case with all child victims. This significant adverse impact is always to be anticipated and it is the reason that significant penalties are provided for such offending and over the years have been increased. As tragic as the consequences are they are none the less within the ordinary expectation of such impacts.
In this matter, I intend to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence and, accordingly, that accepted fact as to non-parole periods only has some relevance in relation to the question of totality and accumulation. I am also cognisant of the comments made by Howie J in Moon v R [2000] NSWCCA 534.
In relation to dealing with historic sexual offences in the absence of being able to discern a sentencing pattern by having regard to the maximum penalty as provided by the legislation as it then stood, I have taken his Honour's comments into account, which have been accepted on many occasions since. I also note that his Honour in that case at [81] stated:
"In a case such as this where there has been such a lengthy delay between offence and sentence and where the offender is rehabilitated it is the fact of imprisonment rather than the length of the sentence which will be of greater significance to punish the offender and denounce his conduct. Although general deterrence is important, it can never be allowed to dictate a sentence which is not proportionate to the offence committed or appropriate to punish the particular offender before the Court."
That passage was later accepted in AJB v R [2007] NSWCCA 51.
As to subjective matters, before the Court is the following: a letter from Dr Jenkins dated 2 April 2012 indicating that the offender has been receiving regular treatment in relation to post traumatic stress disorder. The letter indicates that as of April 2012, his condition was so severe that he was unable to work even eight hours per week. In addition there is a medical certificate, undated but certifying that on 12 December 2016 Dr Christiaan Mostert examined the offender and expressed the opinion that he was not then suffering from dementia, but that he did have episodes of short term memory loss as a result of his PTSD.
In addition, tendered in the trial, and although not re tendered on sentence, I take account of Exhibit R1 and Exhibit R2 relating to his service with the Australian Army from 10 December 1974 to 9 December 1977. In addition there are a number of references, being from CC Ashton and Paul Ashton, being husband and wife and a reference from Helen Roberts, being the offender's second wife, who he married in approximately 2013.
None of the references are dated, but the referees clearly indicate that they are aware of the charges. Of note is the fact that there is no reference in any of the references to the offender as having ever expressed any remorse or contrition in respect of any of the offences. While each of the references refers to being aware of the fact that there are five charges, there is no evidence in respect of their content that they are aware of the detail of the agreed facts.
I have drawn subjective matters from that material together with the offender's criminal history and the Pre-Sentence Assessment Outcome Report obtained from the Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety dated 8 March 2019. Again, I note that there is no reference in that report to the offender as having expressed remorse and/or contrition.
The report itself is somewhat problematic in that it indicates that the offender, post having entered his pleas of guilty and having asked the Court to take into account the Form 1s and the agreed facts signed by him, which were in fact tendered in the course of the trial as tendency evidence for the remaining count in relation to the complainant's younger sister, the Department of Justice and Community Safety Report indicates that the offender claims that no offending ever happened.
I note when the matter returned before me on 3 May 2019, in the circumstances of the Victorian report, Mr Johnson sought leave to withdraw from the matter for ethical reasons together with his instructing solicitor.
However, at the time, while in court, he sought further instructions from his client who indicated to him that despite the content of the Pre-Sentence Assessment and no doubt anything said to counsel and/or his instructing solicitor in conference, the offender wished to continue with the pleas of guilty. In those circumstances, leave to withdraw was not granted, and the offender had the benefit of the assistance of Mr Johnson and his instructing solicitor on sentence.
I accept that those who have provided references, being CC and Paul Ashton and the offender's second wife, hold him in high regard. They attest to him having demonstrated during the time that they have known him - which appears to have been over the last ten years and not before - he has in the last ten years always demonstrated a sense of community, involving himself in the community and to the advancement of community projects. After having been charged in relation to this matter, both he and his current wife were observed to be extremely distressed, withdrawn and very emotional, this is not unusual in the circumstances.
His offending in the 1970s is described by the referees as being inconsistent with the person they have known over the last ten years. They also attest to being aware of him suffering from PTSD. It has been a matter of picking through this material to establish particular matters in relation to the offender. He apparently has three children, at least one female child and one male child. They would appear to be all the product of his first marriage. I note that the male child unfortunately suffers from cerebral palsy and lives in independent housing with a carer in Penrith. However, I note that the offender continues to have a good relationship with his son, who he said to speak to some two to three times a week, and who has, at least in the last ten years, while the offender has been married to second wife, and living in Queensland, attended at their premises to have holidays. I accept that since 1970s, the offender has demonstrated community awareness and a willingness to assist in community activities.
I note that in addition to PTSD, his current wife's reference indicates that he has suffered from bladder cancer, which was operated on, leaving him with a weak bladder. Apart from his service with the Australian Army, I note that he has spent some periods of time in the past, working at various custodial institutions as a prisoner officer. His PTSD is said to have arisen as a result of witnessing the successful suicides of two prisoners by hanging. I further note, that although no submission was made by counsel, although I believe it was raised by the Crown, that it is reasonable to accept that when serving a custodial sentence the offender will have two difficulties, one arising from the fact that offenders in custody because of sexual offending, particularly in relation to children, frequently are dealt with harshly by other prisoners.
In addition, I accept that considering his past employment, it is likely, should that become known, that he will further suffer as a result of the resentment of persons who have previously been correctional officers, and it is likely in the circumstances that it will be necessary for him to be placed into protective custody, with the consequence of more limited time out of the cell, as is the usual course. It may indeed be the fact that it will be a pre-determined course of the custodial authorities to place him in protective custody, once they are aware of the nature of the offending and his previous occupation. That is, it will not simply arise from any treatment he might receive from the general population but because of an apprehension as to what might occur if he is not placed in protective custody.
As to the offender's past criminal history, I note that he has no offences as an adult. All previous offending was as a juvenile, it including offences such as break and enter with intent to steal, break, enter and steal, assault, take and use motor vehicle, stealing, and trespass, as well as, when he was 16 years of age, wilful and obscene exposure, and two counts of assault female.
I do not regard his past criminal history as having any direct relevance to sentencing in relation to these matters, particularly because they were juvenile offences. At worst it could be said that as a juvenile his history was not blemish free. As an adult, he has never been convicted of any offence.
Of course, in the circumstances of this offending, over a period of some approximately six years, on a number of occasions which included not only the charges to which he has pleaded guilty but the Form 1 offences, and in addition, the context evidence which was not challenged, he was not as an adult a person of good character even though lacking convictions.
The offending demonstrates a course of conduct over a significant period of time of sexual offending on an opportunistic basis and a long period thereafter where he has not reoffended.
Allowing of course that I am required to ignore the outstanding charge, alleged to have occurred between 1 September 1979 and 1 March 1980, which has not yet been resolved.
In the circumstances of this matter, and in the light of what I have previously said about the lack of references to remorse and contrition, and the content of the Sentence Assessment Report, despite the plea of guilty I am unable to find that the offender is remorseful or contrite in relation to his offending.
A plea of guilty in itself does not necessarily evidence remorse or contrition, and in my view the Pre-Sentence Report ensures that no such finding can be made.
As to rehabilitation, the offender is now 68 years of age. He will be 69 in September of this year. There has been a very substantial period of time since this offending until now, and no re-offending. In those circumstances I accept that there is a very low prospect of the offender ever re-offending in the future, noting of course that some of the references indicate that he has had ample opportunity in relation to the children of his friends to have opportunistically offended against them, and that there is no such allegation.
In addition, despite the Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety report, and despite his contradiction of the pleas by suggesting that he had never offended sexually, I have assessed him as being a low risk of general reoffending.
That report also referred to something which is not referred to in the reference from his second wife, Helen Roberts. That is that he and his second wife have separated, although they continue to reside in the same home, she being his carer. I accept that their separation has been largely caused by the stress of his having been charged and involved in the legal process as a result of these matters. He continues to enjoy her support as his carer.
I accept that the passage of time since the offending and the offender's participation in community activities has been in effect a course of rehabilitation.
Specific deterrence and general deterrence are always important factors to take into account. General deterrence, in relation to child sexual offending, even where it is historical child sexual offending, is in my view a significant matter to take into account. However, in the circumstances of this offender, and the significant period of time that has passed, I do not see specific deterrence has having an important role in determining an appropriate sentence, although it is still relevant.
I have taken all the matters that I have referred to into account, including the discount for the belated plea as well as the differing sentencing regimes, and it has not been a simple process. However, after considerable consideration, and accepting the submissions made on the offender's behalf and on behalf of the Crown, that these are matters in relation to which sentences of imprisonment must inevitably follow, I have determined a number of indicative sentences as follows:
Count 1 - indecent assault between 1 December 1973 and 31 December 2017 - an indicative term of imprisonment of 18 months.
Count 2 - a further offence of the same nature in respect of the same complainant, between 1 April 1974 and 30 June 1974 - an indicative sentence of 18 months.
Count 3 - being an offence of the same nature in respect of the same complainant, between 1 April 1974 and 30 June 1974 - an indicative sentence of 18 months.
Each of those first three offences occurred when the complainant was 13 years of age.
Count 4 - an indecent assault on the same complainant between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1978, when the complainant was about 18 years of age, and taking into account the additional matter contained on a Form 1 - an indicative sentence of 18 months.
Count 5 - an indecent assault on the same complainant between 1 April 1979 and 30 September 1979 and taking into account the further offence contained on a Form 1 - an indicative sentence of two years.
If I did not say it before, I note that it has been difficult to balance the differing acts, the maximum penalties available, the application of s 25AA to Counts 1, 2 and 3, and the lower maximum sentence in relation to Counts 4 and 5, as a result of the age of the complainant at the time relevant to those charges.
While the fact that I have provided an 18-month indicative sentence in relation to each of Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, might be seen to indicate that I have not considered any specific circumstance of distinction, particularly in relation to Count 4. I have in fact done so.
Count 5 - I have also taken into account that it appears that the nature of his of his conduct over the years had increased in significance, as on this occasion it involved restraint and violence towards the victim.
I have taken all those matters into account in determining the aggregate sentence, and being cognisant of the principle of totality and the need for accumulation to reflect the number of offences and the differing nature of some of the offences.
Mr Roberts, would you please stand. You are convicted in relation to each of the five counts that I have referred to, and in relation to Counts 4 and 5 I have taken into account in respect of each the relevant Form 1 offence. The sentence is one of a two years non-parole period, with an additional term of one year. Expressed differently, that is a term of imprisonment of three years with a two year non-parole period.
I note that you were arrested on 4 October 2016 and released on 5 October 2016. The Crown has suggested that that is one day of previous custody. I intend to count it as two days of previous custody. Accordingly, the sentences will be backdated from today by two days, so the non-parole period of two years will commence from 6 May 2019 and you will be first eligible for parole on 5 May 2021. The additional term is one year: that will commence on 6 May 2021 and expire on 5 May 2022.
Thanks to the recent amendments there is no need to make an actual order for release on parole, as it is a statutory provision. I do, however, caution you, Mr Roberts, that when released on parole you should ensure that you do not breach it, because the inevitable result is being returned to custody. I note that I have varied the statutory relationship between the non-parole period and the balance of term by reducing the non-parole period by three months, particularly because this is the offender's first time in custody.
Is there any particular matter that I have omitted, or any error in relation to my reference to the facts?
HOGAN: No, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: In those circumstances, the matter is completed and I will adjourn.
[8]
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: 25 February 2020