Regina v ASLETT

• 50 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR: The Prisoner stands for sentence in relation to 19 counts presented on four separate indictments, comprising:

(a) One count of murder Crimes Act 1900, s 18: maximum penalty imprisonment for life;

(b) Two counts of aggravated sexual assault in company Crimes Act 1900 s 61JA (1)(c)(ii): maximum penalty imprisonment for life;

(c) Eight counts of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon Crimes Act 1900 s 97(2): maximum penalty imprisonment for 25 years;

(d) Two counts of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon Crimes Act 1900 s 97(2): maximum penalty imprisonment for 25 years;

(e) One count of specially aggravated kidnapping Crimes Act 1900 s 86(3): maximum penalty imprisonment for 25 years;

(f) One count of aggravated car jacking Crimes Act 1900 s 154C(2): maximum penalty imprisonment for 14 years;

(g) One count of attempting to obtain money by deception Crimes Act 1900 s 178BA and 344A: maximum penalty imprisonment for 5 years;

(h) Three counts of larceny of a motor vehicle (take and drive) Crimes Act 1900 s 154A and s 117: maximum penalty imprisonment for 5 years; 2 In addition he has asked that nine further offences be taken into account on three separate Form 1 documents, comprising two offences of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, two offences of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon, one offence of aggravated kidnapping, one offence of being armed with intent to commit a felony, one offence of take and drive a conveyance, and two offences of being carried in a conveyance. 3 All of the offences included in the indictments and in the Form 1 documents were committed between 3 May 2003 and 20 August 2003, and the offences of murder (s 18), aggravated sexual assault in company (s 61JA) and aggravated car jacking (s 154C) fall within Division 1A of Part 4 of the Sentencing Act (Standard Non-Parole Periods).

Count 1: On 3 May 2003 at Newington in the State of New South Wales, being then armed with an offensive weapon namely a gun and a knife, the Prisoner did take and drive a motor vehicle bearing registration number EUN-603 without the consent of [EC], whilst [EC] was in the motor vehicle. [ Crimes Act 1900 s 154C(2)]

Count 2: On or about 4 May 2003, at Lansvale in the State of New South Wales, being then in company of another person, the Prisoner did have sexual intercourse with [EC] without her consent and knowing that she did not consent, and immediately before the offence, did threaten to inflict actual bodily harm upon [EC] by means of an offensive weapon, namely a knife. [ Crimes Act 1900 s 61JA(1)(c)(ii)].

Count 3: On or about 4 May 2003, at Lansvale in the State of New South Wales, being then in company of another person, the Prisoner did have sexual intercourse with [EC] without her consent and knowing that she did not consent, and immediately before the offence, did threaten to inflict actual bodily harm upon [EC] by means of an offensive weapon, namely a knife. [ Crimes Act 1900 s 61JA(1)(c)(ii)].

Count 4: On or about 4 May 2003, at Lansvale in the State of New South Wales, being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a black handgun, the Prisoner did rob [EC] of a Commonwealth Bank key card and mobile telephone. [ Crimes Act 1900 s 97(2)].

Count 5: On or about 4 May 2003 at Lansvale in the State of New South Wales, being then in the company of another person, the Prisoner detained [EC] with intent to obtain an advantage namely, to obtain the Personal Identification Number of a Commonwealth Bank account in the name of [EC], and at the time of the offence, actual bodily harm was occasioned to [EC]. [ Crimes Act 1900 s 86(3)].

Count 6: On or about 4 May 2003, at Lansvale in the State of New South Wales, by deception, namely using a Personal Identification Number provided to him by [EC], the Prisoner did attempt to obtain money from a Commonwealth Bank account in the name of [EC]. [ Crimes Act 1900 s 178BA and 344A].

Facts 4 On 3 May 2003 at about 9 PM, EC parked her red Mercedes coupe, registration number EUN 603 in the wash bay zone of her sister's unit block in Newington. 5 At around 11 PM she left these premises with her Maltese terrier dog. She saw two men in the alley, and waited until they had passed the gate before walking out. As she began to walk to her car she saw one of the males standing in the alleyway. Suddenly the Prisoner emerged from the bushes and stood in front of her. When he spoke, her dog started barking and she picked it up and walked on towards the Woolworth's car park. She decided to delay getting into her car while the two men were in the area. 6 After walking around the car park for a few minutes she returned to the wash bay area of the units and looked, but could not see, either of the two men. As she was about to enter the car, she heard running footsteps. She looked up and saw the Prisoner running from in front of the vehicle. He grabbed the offside door and pulled it open. The victim could see that he was the same person who had earlier appeared out of the bushes. 7 The Prisoner pushed a black gun against her temple and she began to scream. He said, "Shut up", and pushed her over to the front passenger seat. As she was moving into the passenger seat he demanded the keys to the car, threatening her with a knife. She could see the second man standing at the passenger door. He was also trying to get into the car, but the door was locked. While the Prisoner was trying to start the car the victim saw that he was holding a knife which was approximately 20 centimetres long with a silver blade. As the Prisoner was attempting to start the car he was yelling at the victim. 8 After placing the vehicle into motion he drove around the streets of Newington with the victim on board. When she asked him what he wanted he replied "nothing". 9 There was some conversation about his companion when they saw him walking along the side of the road. The Prisoner stopped the car and told the victim to get into the back. As she did so she felt the Prisoner push her. She saw that he had the knife in his hand. His companion sat in the front passenger seat and the two men began talking to each other, and laughing and giggling. 10 The Prisoner asked the victim if she had a purse or a credit card and she replied in the negative. He drove the car through Lidcombe, Chester Hill, Villawood and onto the Hume Highway. He stopped the vehicle near a service station in the vicinity of the intersection with Woodville Road. The passenger took some coins out of the ashtray and left the car. The Prisoner then climbed onto the back seat carrying a knife in his hand. The victim began to scream softly and the Prisoner said to her, "Shut up and don't look at me." He slapped her face and pulled her legs towards him. She screamed and the Prisoner repeated his earlier instruction and pushed her face away from him. 11 He cut her underpants and when she tried to push him away she was threatened with the knife. Whilst still wearing gloves the Prisoner inserted fingers of his right hand into her vagina for several minutes. It felt rough and hurt her, and she cried. The prisoner withdrew his fingers, undid his pants, punched her arms and slapped her face with one hand while holding the knife in the other. He then pushed his penis into her vagina while telling her to shut up and pushing her face away from him. 12 When he had finished, the second male opened the door of the car and the Prisoner climbed across the victim and left the vehicle. The two men began talking while standing beside the passenger side of the car. The Prisoner pulled some wet tissues out of the glove box and passed them to the victim and told her to clean herself up. 13 As the Prisoner began to get back into the vehicle he noticed the victim's wallet in the door pocket. He began to shout and swear at her. He opened the wallet and found her licence and bankcard. He demanded the PIN number for the account and threatened to injure or kill her with the knife, if she did not provide the PIN number. She could not remember the number but told him several numbers which were later unsuccessfully tried by the Prisoner. 14 The victim was eventually released and ran to a nearby block of units where she was unable to obtain any assistance. She then ran to a townhouse behind those units and while there spoke to her mother and to the police. 15 When her car was eventually recovered it was found that her mobile phone had been stolen. The SIM card belonging to Linda Berry, the de facto partner of the Prisoner has been identified by Vodaphone as being subsequently used in this phone. 16 On 4 May 2003 Dr Young examined the victim and identified several injuries to her. She was found to have bruising to her head and damage around her vagina which was painful to the touch. There was a superficial laceration 3.5 centimetres long to the Labia minora and a tear 2 centimetres in length further into the labia minora. The underpants of the victim had been cut open. 17 Police recovered three "Wet Ones" tissues on a grassed area near the Mobile Service Station at Lansvale. The Prisoner's DNA was identified on a high vaginal swab and it could not be excluded as being a major contributor to DNA located on the seat of the victim's motor vehicle. 18 These matters were transferred to the Supreme Court, pursuant to s 128(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. They had been originally fixed for trial in the District Court, but were transferred to this Court to be dealt with at the same time as the other matters in respect of which the Prisoner stands for sentence. As a result of the pleas which were entered on 22 November 2004 the Crown elected not to pursue the other six matters which were charged in the same indictment. The Prisoner had originally pleaded not guilty to all of the counts in this indictment when appearing before Judge Sides in the District Court, on 6 August 2004.

Count 3: On 28 July 2003, at Cabramatta in the State of New South Wales, being armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, did rob Hoang Thi Nguyen of a mobile telephone.

Facts 19 At about 6:30 PM Hoang Thi Nguyen was working in a convenience store at Canley Heights. When she went out the back of the store to her car, the Prisoner pushed her into the vehicle. At the time he was armed with a knife approximately 30 centimetres in length with a silver coloured handle. 20 After forcing her into the driver's seat he held a knife to the right side of her neck and asked "Where's your money?" The victim replied that she had no money, and said that she just worked there. The Prisoner said that she was a liar, to which the victim replied that she was telling the truth, adding that her friend had money, and was waiting outside. The Prisoner instructed her to open the door and to call her friend. She replied that she could not do that because she was waiting outside with her boyfriend. The Prisoner said that he knew that only the two of them worked at the shop and that she had to call out in English. The Prisoner then took hold of her hair and forced her to the back door of the shop. 21 When she opened the door she saw Thi Thanh Ho. The Prisoner released her and grabbed Ho. A second person seized Nguyen and forced her to the ground. 22 The Prisoner held a knife to the right side of Ho's neck. He seized her handbag and went through the contents. He took a sum of money totalling approximately $6,000 in cash. He then said that he wanted more money and asked where it was. He asked her to show him how to open the front cash register and she then opened the cash register and the young boy with the Prisoner took about $500 from it. 23 The Prisoner then took Ho and Nguyen to an office at the rear of the store where he forced Ho to open a cash drawer which was however empty. The Prisoner said that they were lying and asked Ho to show them where the money was. The second offender kept watch over the two women whilst the Prisoner went into the shop and returned a short time later with a box full of cigarettes and phonecards. The two offenders then left the shop with the money, cigarettes, phonecards and the mobile phones which they had taken from each of the women and entered a light blue coloured car. 24 Police later located that car at the residence of the de facto wife of the Prisoner at Tregear. A white coloured porcelain water pipe was subsequently identified as coming from the store. When a search warrant was executed at 8 Disalvo Close, Cabramatta West, which was a place of residence used by the Prisoner, police located a number of phone cards similar to those which had been stolen during the robbery. 25 Ms Nguyen had a Nokia model 8210 mobile telephone handset and Ms Ho had a Nokia model 8855 mobile phone handset stolen during this armed robbery. Inquiries from Vodaphone Law Enforcement revealed that Ms Nguyen's phone had been used between 29 July 2003 and 6 August 2003 with a SIM card in the name of Amanda Aslett, who was the sister of the Prisoner. 26 Inquiries from Vodaphone Law Enforcement showed that the phone belonging to Ms Ho had been used between 12 August 2003 and 22 August 2003 with a SIM card of Linda Berry who was the de facto partner of the Prisoner. It was also used with the SIM card of Amanda Aslett on 28 July 2003.

Count 4: On 30 July 2003, at Auburn in the State of New South Wales, being then armed with an offensive weapon, namely a baseball bat, the Prisoner did rob Eduardo Arbis of a Smith and Wesson Magnum revolver, and a Colt semiautomatic pistol, a quantity of ammunition, a pair of earmuffs and a bag.

Facts 27 At about 8:10 PM on this day, Eduardo Arbis left the Shooting Academy in Auburn carrying a Smith and Wesson model 666 .357 calibre Magnum six shot revolver and a Colt model 1911 eight shot semiautomatic pistol. These firearms were secured in a green canvas bag which was locked with a padlock. It also contained 10 rounds of .357 calibre ammunition as well as some earmuffs, a visor and a cleaning kit. 28 As Arbis placed the bag into the boot of his car he saw the Prisoner who was armed with a baseball bat running towards him. The Prisoner swung the bat in the direction of Arbis' head. Arbis lifted his hand over his head to defend himself. The bat struck his right hand. The Prisoner then swung the bat again, saying to Arbis, "Back off". Arbis stepped back and the offender removed the bag containing the firearms, and other items from the boot of his car and then ran off. 29 On 22 August 2003, the Prisoner was arrested in the Liverpool area in relation to other matters. At the time of his arrest, he was found to be in possession of the Smith and Wesson Magnum revolver. During the execution of a search warrant, at an address where he had been residing, a 35 millimetre camera film was seized. The film was developed and included a number of photos that show the offender posing with this firearm. This weapon was later used by the Prisoner in the several armed robberies and one murder. 30 The second firearm that was stolen has not been recovered. 31 As a result of being struck with the baseball bat during the robbery, Arbis suffered bruising and cuts to his right little finger.

Count 5: On 31 July 2003 at South Auburn in the State of New South Wales, being then armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a handgun, the Prisoner did rob Jeky Li of a sum of money, a wallet and a mobile phone.

Facts 32 At about 8:40 PM on 31 July 2003 Jeky Li, who was the owner of Mega Lighting of 1/10 Newton Street South Auburn, commenced to close his store. He placed the day's takings ($800) into a black laptop. At approximately 9 PM he locked and closed the store and left the premises through the rear door and walked to his car. As he started the vehicle he was approached by the Prisoner who was wearing dark clothing, a balaclava and black gloves with the fingertips cut off. He was holding a silver coloured handgun. He was accompanied by a second person who was also wearing a black balaclava, and holding a knife approximately 30 centimetres long. 33 The Prisoner placed the gun up against Mr Li's head. The second male placed the knife to his throat. The Prisoner instructed Mr Li to get the money. Mr Li replied that he did not have any. The Prisoner pushed the gun hard up against his head and as a result Mr Li removed a wallet from his bag and handed it over. The Prisoner took the gun away from his head, but then said that there was not enough money in the wallet and once again pointed the gun to his head. 34 Mr Li attempted to push the weapon way and the Prisoner warned him not to touch the gun, indicating that if he touched it he would die. He opened the chamber of the gun and showed Mr Li the six rounds of ammunition that were loaded in the chamber. 35 Mr Li produced his personal wallet and the Prisoner took $150 - $200 in cash from it. He also removed approximately $30 in change from the car. 36 The Prisoner then dragged Mr Li to the rear door of his store. He forced him to open the door and to turn off the alarm, and pushed him into the store where he asked where was "the big money?" 37 As Mr Li was walking towards the main showroom he could feel the gun being pressed into his back. When he reached the cash register he showed the Prisoner there was no money in the cash trays. The Prisoner asked where was the money, and when Mr Li informed him that there was no more money, the Prisoner took him to the rear storeroom where he was made to lie on the ground. He said "We're going to kill you. Where's the money?" He also commanded Mr Li to hand over his mobile phone, which he did. Mr Li was made to walk, at gunpoint, into the toilet, where he was instructed to remain otherwise he would be killed. Sometime later Mr Li left the toilet and called the police. 38 Approximately $180-$230 in cash and a mobile phone were stolen. The description of the firearm that was used matches the Smith & Wesson 666 .357 Magnum revolver which had been stolen on the previous day. 39 The Prisoner pleaded guilty to Counts 3, 4 and 5 before Judge Sides in the District Court on 6 August 2004. Upon that basis the Crown has permitted the matters which had originally been charged under Counts 1 and 2 to be taken into account when the Prisoner is sentenced for Count 3 (that is, items (a) and (b) below). A further three matters are to be taken into account, on a separate Form 1, when sentencing the Prisoner for Count 5 (that is, items (c) to (e) below). 40 The Form 1 offences were as follows:

(a) Robbery while armed with an offensive weapon: 41 This related to the robbery of Ms Ho on 25 July 2003, three days before the offence charged in Count 3. The Prisoner went to her shop and followed her after she closed the shop that night. She became frightened and took refuge in a nearby shop before walking to her car and driving to the BKK car park in Cabramatta. As she left her car the Prisoner threatened her and took her handbag which contained $3000 in cash and three mobile phones.

(b) Robbery while armed with an offensive weapon: 42 This related to the robbery of Ms Ho of her handbag, containing $6000 in cash, and cigarettes and telephone cards referred to in the facts outlined for Count 3 of the indictment.

(c) Robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon 43 This offence was committed just after 5 PM at the premises of Bob Jane T-Mart, when Mathew Ryder noticed the Prisoner inside the store which had been closed, wearing a balaclava and carrying a gun. A second, younger male who was in his company, held a knife to the victim's throat. Cash was taken from the till and from the victim's pocket. The Prisoner instructed the victim to open a safe. When this could not be achieved, the Prisoner smashed all of the landline phones in the store and took some mobile phones and car keys. The victim was tied by his hands and feet before the offenders left.

(d) Take and drive conveyance 44 Having left Mr Ryder bound in the store, the Prisoner went to his Ford Falcon utility and drove it away without the victim's permission.

(e) Aggravated kidnapping 45 This related to the fact that the victim the subject of Count 5 was forced, at gunpoint, to walk to the toilet where he was instructed to remain under threat of being killed.

Count 1: On 1 August 2003 the Prisoner did murder Emad Youssef.

Facts 46 The deceased, Emad Youssef, was the proprietor of a pharmacy situated in a small shopping centre at Canley Heights. At about 6:15 PM on Friday 1 August 2003 the Prisoner who was armed with a .357 Magnum pistol went to these premises with the intention of robbing Mr Youssef of the day's takings. 47 At about 6:30 PM the deceased, having closed the pharmacy, walked with a staff member, Eva Keovongsack, to the secure parking area at the rear of the centre. Ms Keovongsack reversed her car out of the secure area and the deceased followed and locked the gate. As he re-entered his car, he was confronted by the Prisoner who had been waiting in a car in the public parking area which was also located behind the shopping centre. 48 The Prisoner was seen by Katherine Tran to open the door of the deceased's car, whereupon the men began to struggle. The Prisoner placed his hand into his pants pocket and took out a gun. The weapon discharged inflicting the wound from which the victim died. 49 Ms Keovongsack who was, at this time, driving down the service lane between the car park and Peel Street heard a gunshot. She looked in her rear vision mirror and saw the deceased staggering towards her vehicle and calling out her name. She stopped her vehicle and ran back to where he had collapsed. She noticed that he was bleeding, and ran into one of the shops to raise the alarm. Mr Youssef was, however, dead by the time that the police and ambulance arrived. 50 After shooting the deceased the Prisoner took his brief case and fled to his sister's house at Cabramatta West. There he made admissions to both his sister Catherine and to Irene Lynette to the effect that his attempt to rob the pharmacist had gone wrong, and that he had accidentally shot the man. Later that night a teenage nephew of the Prisoner disposed of the stolen briefcase by throwing it into a creek behind the Mount Pritchard Community Club, where it was later found. 51 On 22 August 2003, police received information that the Prisoner was at premises in Busby. Members of the Tactical Operations Unit were dispatched to the area and shortly after 10:50 PM Senior Constables Lawlor and Smith approached those premises through the rear yard. As they approached the rear dividing fence they heard the sound of footsteps and saw the Prisoner climbing over the fence. The Prisoner ignored a direction not to move, and jumped over the fence, throwing an object away as he did so. He was apprehended, and, in the area where the Prisoner had thrown the object, Police found a pistol in a black holster. The prisoner acknowledged having thrown it there. 52 He was taken into custody, and on 26 August 2003 he was interviewed by members of the Risk Assessment Team attached to the MRRC at Silverwater. The Prisoner began to sob and said "I can't sleep, I'm thinking about the man I killed." He admitted killing a man at Canley Vale during the course of a robbery which went wrong. He said that the police had found the pistol which he had used. 53 Whilst still in custody the Prisoner contacted Detective Sergeant McNeil by telephone and indicated that he wanted to speak to him. On 23 October 2003 he was interviewed by Det Sgt McNeil and admitted that he had gone to the shopping centre on 1 August 2003, armed with a pistol, with the intention of robbing the deceased. He said that a week or so before the robbery a friend had shown him how the deceased left his business. He said that on the day of the killing he had been smoking "ice" and heroin. He acknowledged that after running to the driver's side door of the deceased's vehicle, he had operated the lever to open the boot. The deceased, he said, had grabbed his arm and began yelling. He pulled out his gun, intending to scare his victim. He said that he had spoken to police to get the matter off his conscience. He indicated that he had run away believing the victim had only been shot in the shoulder and that he would be alright. 54 The pistol which was recovered by Det Lawlor was examined by the Police ballistic and fingerprint experts. A comparison of the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased with a bullet which was test fired from the gun, revealed that both bullets had been fired from the same weapon. An examination of the weapon by a fingerprint expert showed that a left thumbprint found on the right side of the barrel matched that of the Prisoner. 55 The Prisoner pleaded guilty to this offence on his arraignment before Barr J on 2 July 2004. 56 I have received and read the victim impact statement which was provided by the widow of Mr Youssef, which discloses the enormous personal and financial loss suffered by her and by her daughters, as a result of this senseless murder. Apart from losing a loved husband and father, they have been deprived of the benefit of the two pharmacy businesses which the deceased owned, and this will impact significantly upon them. Mrs Youssef had also suffered a severe depressive reaction to the loss of her husband which will require ongoing treatment. 57 A question arises, by reason of the enactment of s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, as to the continuing application of the decision in R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76. That was left open in R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300. However I consider that I should continue to follow Previtera until it is reconsidered by the Court of Criminal Appeal, and I have taken this victim impact statement into account on that basis.

Count 1: On 6 August 2003 at Towoon Bay in the State of New South Wales the Prisoner when armed with a dangerous weapon did rob Warren Richardson of $596 in cash, assorted bottles of alcohol and cigarettes, the property of Robert Anderson trading as Towoon Bay cellars.

Facts 58 At about 9 PM on 6 August 2003 an employee of the Toowoon Bay Cellars, Warren Richardson, was closing the business. He was standing inside the store near the front door when he was confronted by the prisoner and an unknown accomplice, each of whom was wearing a balaclava. The Prisoner said to him, "We don't want to hurt you. We want the money". At that stage the Prisoner pointed a loaded silver coloured .357 calibre magnum revolver to the stomach of Mr Richardson and said "It has hollow nose bullets." 59 The Prisoner directed Mr Richardson to go behind the counter and give him the money. When Mr Richardson opened the cash register the Prisoner instructed him to put the money in a plastic bag. Mr Richardson then removed the cash money, placed it into a plastic bag, and handed the bag to the offender who asked "Where is the rest of the money?". 60 The co-offender said "I will have some cigarettes". Mr Richardson was then directed to remove a quantity of Longreach and Winfield cigarette packets which he placed into the same white plastic bag. He filled another bag full of cigarette packets. 61 A total of $596 in cash, assorted bottles of alcohol and cigarettes belonging to the business, as well as a sports bag containing a jacket, wallet, personal papers and assorted cards, the property of Warren Richardson, were taken. 62 When interviewed by police the Prisoner admitted to the commission of these offences saying that he had travelled to Toowoon Bay Cellars in a 1987 VL turbo Holden Commodore which he had previously stolen from Gosford. He informed police that he had divided the cash which had been stolen because he did not drink alcohol or smoke, and the remaining property had been kept by his co-offender.

Count 2: On 6 August 2003 at Tuggerah in the State of New South Wales the Prisoner did steal a 1987 turbo Holden Commodore sedan with registration number XLD 216, the property of Scott Lambert.

Facts 63 Between 8 PM and 9 PM on 6 August 2003 a VL Holden Commodore XLD 216 was stolen from the service area of Grawill Ford, at Gosford 64 This vehicle was recovered on 21 August 2003 at the intersection of Bay Road and Ocean Parade, The Entrance. The vehicle was found to be missing a steering wheel, stereo, speakers, turbo pop-off valve and car mats. It was also found to be fitted with different wheels and tyres. 65 When interviewed the Prisoner admitted to the theft of the vehicle from the service area. He claimed that at the time of the theft he had only the intention to take and use the vehicle. He said that he later sold some of the parts, which he had taken from the vehicle, to a friend, and that this friend had also removed some parts without his consent.

Count 3: On 11 August 2003 at Ourimbah in the State of New South Wales, when armed with a dangerous weapon, the Prisoner did rob Shirley Ellis of $1840 in cash, the property of Memtown Proprietary Limited trading as Ourimbah Post Office.

Facts 66 At about 4:40 PM on Monday 11 August 2003 the Prisoner and an unknown co-offender parked the vehicle which they were driving in the vicinity of the Ourimbah Medical Centre. The Prisoner and his companion walked to the Ourimbah Post Office. Each disguised his appearance by wearing a balaclava. They there confronted the owner of the business, Shirley Ellis. 67 Whilst armed with a loaded silver coloured .357 calibre magnum revolver the Prisoner and his accomplice jumped the service counter and removed cash from the wooden style cash drawers beneath that counter. They placed the money into a dark-coloured backpack before running from the Post Office. 68 Outside the premises the co-offender confronted Haley Kuhn and demanded the keys to her motor vehicle. Whilst the co-offender was trying to remove them from her hand, the Prisoner called out, "Don't take your anger out on her, come on." 69 The Prisoner and his companion were last seen driving away. A sum of $1840 was stolen from the Post Office. When interviewed by police the Prisoner admitted the offence and stated that he tried to calm the victim down due to her hysteria and age.

Count 4: On 13 August 2003 at Wyoming in the State of New South Wales, whilst armed with a dangerous weapon, the Prisoner did rob Paul Marlow of one black briefcase containing personal papers the property of the victim.

Facts 70 At about 6:35 PM on Wednesday 13 August 2003 the owners of the Maidens Brush Newsagency, at Wyoming, Paul and Jennifer Marlow, were closing the business down for the night. Paul Marlow walked outside the rear door to remove rubbish from the premises. When he returned he left the back door open. Jennifer Marlow walked to the door and was there confronted by the Prisoner and a co-offender. Both were wearing balaclavas. Mrs Marlow screamed when she saw that the Prisoner was in possession of a handgun. The Prisoner took her to the safe and said "Open the safe you cunt". Mrs Marlow said that she did not know how to do so. The Prisoner said, "Yes you do cunt." He then directed her to lie on the floor and to face the wall. 71 While lying on the floor Mrs Marlow screamed, which alerted Mr Marlow. He turned and saw the prisoner pointing the firearm towards him. He ran from the shop to an adjoining premises where he caused the police to be contacted. The prisoner remained in the newsagency for a short time and again demanded that Mrs Marlow open the safe. She again claimed that she did not know the combination. The Prisoner remained in the shop for a short while longer before stealing a black coloured briefcase containing personal papers. 72 When interviewed by police the Prisoner admitted the offence. He said that on leaving the store he ran on foot for a short distance before entering the vehicle, which was not stolen and then travelled back to The Entrance area. He claimed that he threw the black briefcase from the car whilst returning to The Entrance.

Count 5: On 14 August 2003 at Bateau Bay in the State of New South Wales, when armed with a dangerous weapon, the Prisoner did rob Gary Ives of $4019 in cash, the property of Beryl Ives and Gary Ives.

Count 6: At the same time and place the Prisoner did, when armed with a dangerous weapon rob Gregory Culpan of one leather wallet containing $10 in cash the property of Gregory Culpan.

Facts 73 Shortly before 5 PM on Thursday 14 August 2003 the Prisoner drove to the Post Office at Bateau Bay in a stolen Holden Commodore registration number UMZ-549 accompanied by two co-offenders. He entered the Post Office in the company of one of his co-offenders, and in possession of a loaded .357 magnum revolver. Each was wearing a balaclava. 74 The Prisoner approached the service counter and forced the only customer, Gregory Culpan, to the ground. He demanded money from Gary and Beryl Ives, the owners of the business. He remained on the customer side of the service counter while his co-offender jumped over the counter and removed an amount of cash from the cash drawers. While that was happening he also took the wallet of Gregory Culpan which had been left at the service counter. 75 The Prisoner and his co-offenders left the Post Office and escaped in the vehicle UMZ-549.

Count 7: On 20 August 2003 at Tuggerah in the State of New South Wales, when armed with a dangerous weapon, the prisoner did rob Peter Sutherland of $28,075 in Australian currency, 20 Great Britain pounds and 300 Eurodollars, the property of the National Australia Bank Ltd.

Count 8: On the same date at Tuggerah in the State of New South Wales the Prisoner did steal a 1985 Maroon coloured Holden Commodore sedan with registration number NQL-340 the property of Paul Richards.

Count 9: On the same day at Tuggerah he also stole a 1989 Holden Commodore sedan registered number QRU-579 the property of Therese Wilkinson.

Facts 76 At about 3:55 PM on Wednesday 20 August 2003 the Prisoner entered the National Australia Bank in the Westfield Shopping Centre Tuggerah. He was disguised with a cap and sunglasses. He approached a staff member, Peter Sutherland, who was behind an open inquiry area and threw to him a plastic bag which landed on the floor. 77 Mr Sutherland collected the bag and at that time noticed that the Prisoner had produced a loaded silver coloured .357 calibre magnum revolver which was partially concealed within a leather holster. The Prisoner said, "Fill it up. Do as I say and no one will get hurt." He followed Mr Sutherland through an access door leading into the teller area. Mr Sutherland removed all of the cash from the top three drawers between two female staff members, and placed it in the plastic bag. 78 The Prisoner said, "Where is more?" Mr Sutherland then opened the lower drawer and removed three bundles of $50 notes which he also placed in the plastic bag. 79 The Prisoner said to him "Don't look at me". While behind the customer counter area he pointed to a mobile telephone belonging to a staff member, Jennifer Hickman and said "Give me the mobile phone". That phone was then placed into the same plastic bag by Mr Sutherland. This mobile telephone was located on the Prisoner when he was arrested. The Prisoner then walked away from the customer area and left the Bank. 80 As a result of the commission of these two offences a total amount of cash comprising $28,075 in Australian currency, 20 Great Britain Pounds, and 300 Eurodollars, and one Nokia 3310 mobile telephone were stolen. 81 During the commission of the offences a witness made observation of tattoos on the left fingers of the offender and the description of those tattoos is similar to those on the hand of the Prisoner. 82 At the time of his arrest the Prisoner had a total amount of $9,396.90 upon his person. He used a portion of the proceeds of this robbery to purchase a vehicle. 83 When interviewed the Prisoner admitted to committing the offences. He also admitted having stolen a Maroon coloured Holden Commodore NQL-340 from the Supa Centre at Tuggerah which he had driven to the Westfield Shopping Centre. 84 He said that he had used an amount of amphetamines and heroin before stealing another vehicle which was a red coloured VN Commodore registration number QRU 579. He then drove that vehicle to the car parking area outside the National Australia Bank where he carried out the robbery mentioned. He then left the bank and drove the red Commodore back to the rooftop of Westfield Shopping Centre and parked it in a different location. The vehicle sustained damage to the ignition and steering column. He then entered the first stolen vehicle, NQL-340, before travelling to Anzac Road Long Jetty where it was abandoned. 85 In relation to these matters, which were also transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 128(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Prisoner offered guilty pleas in the Local Court on 26 April 2004. He was committed to the District Court for sentence. By reason of the pleas to Counts 1 to 9, the Crown allowed the remaining matters to be dealt with on a Form 1, when he was sentenced in relation to Count 7. 86 The Form 1 offences were as follows:

(a) Robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon: 87 This related to the robbery of Ms McKinnon's mobile phone during the offence the subject of Count 7.

(b) Carried in conveyance: 88 This related to the Prisoner being carried as a passenger in the stolen Holden Commodore registration number UMZ 549 prior to the commission of the offence the subject of Count 5.

(c) Carried in conveyance 89 This related to the Prisoner being carried as a passenger, on 8 August 2003, in a stolen motor vehicle OLM 650 in the Tuggerah area.

(d) Armed with intent to commit an indictable offence 90 This relates to the fact that on 8 August 2003 the Prisoner attended outside the Long Jetty Post Office with the intention of committing a robbery at those premises, while armed with the 357 Magnum.

Prior Offending 91 The sentencing of the Prisoner for this extraordinary saga of ongoing, and major, criminality is complicated by the circumstance that, on 26 November 2004, he was sentenced by Judge Finnane, after trial in the District Court, in relation to eight further exceedingly serious offences, which were also found to have been committed during the period mentioned. 92 The reasons for sentence of Judge Finnane record that those offences were committed on 17 July 2003 (that is, before all of the matters for which I am to impose sentence save for those included in the first of the four indictments set out above), when the prisoner and three younger persons went to the suburb of Newington looking for a place to burgle. They selected the unit of a family of Asian origin, which they entered after climbing up to a balcony. They wore masks and gloves and carried knives. The male householder was tied up and threatened with knives upon his return home from work at about midnight, and his wife was compelled to open a safe, from which jewellery was stolen. Additionally the offenders stole money, electrical goods and compact discs. The premises were ransacked. 93 His Honour found that the Prisoner was responsible for leading this venture and for giving orders to his accomplices. He was the first to have sexual intercourse without consent with the 16 year old daughter of the household. He did so at knifepoint, having threatened to poke her eyes out if she looked at him. 94 Although she had been a virgin he had vaginal intercourse which left her bleeding and distressed. With the Prisoner's encouragement, two of his accomplices also had forced sexual intercourse with her without her consent. Their conduct included vaginal rape, anal rape, and forced fellatio. The young girl suffered extensive tearing to her vagina and perineum which required surgery later that morning. 95 The offences were described by Judge Finnane as having involved a particularly brutal and planned home invasion, and together with the sexual assaults as ones in which gratuitous cruelty had been inflicted. His Honour went on to find that the Prisoner had expressed no remorse or compassion for his victims and in sentencing him took into account his finding that the Prisoner was a "cold, callous, vicious and extremely dangerous criminal", a finding which precisely reflects my own assessment of him. 96 As a result of this episode of criminality, the Prisoner received the following sentences:

Count 1: Specially aggravated breaking and entering: - non-parole period of 10 years to commence on 22 August 2003 with the balance of the term being one of 3 years and 4 months;

Count 2: Sexual intercourse without consent: Contrary to s 61JA of the Crimes Act - - non-parole period of 20 years to be served concurrently and partially cumulatively upon the sentence for Count 1, with the balance of the term being one of 6 years and 8 months;

Counts 3 and 4 : Sexual intercourse without consent: Contrary to s 61JA of the Crimes Act - concurrent non-parole periods each of 15 years, to commence on 22 August 2010 (that is, upon a date 7 years after the commencement of the non-parole period for Counts 1 to 2), with the balance of the terms each being 5 years.

Counts 5, 6 and 7: Sexual intercourse without consent Contrary to s 61JA of the Crimes Act - concurrent non-parole periods each of 8 years to commence on 22 August 2025 (that is, upon a date 22 years after the commencement of the non-parole periods for Counts 1 to 2), with the balance of the terms each being 10 years.

Count 8: Aggravated act of indecency - Fixed term of 2 years to be served concurrently with the sentence for Count 1 and 2. 97 The effective overall sentencing order was one providing for a non-parole period of 30 years commencing on 22 August 2003 and expiring on 21 August 2033. By reason of the length of the balance of the term set for Counts 5, 6 and 7 the length of the overall sentence was effectively 40 years. 98 Although the Prisoner has foreshadowed an intention to pursue an appeal against these convictions and against the length of the sentences imposed, I have no choice other than to proceed to sentence upon the assumption that the convictions were regularly entered and that the sentences have as yet been undisturbed. 99 In sentencing the Prisoner, Judge Finnane had regard, as must I, to the very lengthy and disturbing criminal history of the Prisoner. I must also have regard to the evidence that was placed before me in relation to his subjective background. 100 His criminal history began in the Children's Court at the age of 11 years, when on 18 May 1982 he was sentenced to four years probation for offences of take and drive, offences of break enter and steal, offences of stealing, offences of malicious injury, and one offence of attempt to steal. 101 On 7 September 1982 he was committed to an institution in general terms for an offence of break enter and steal. On 14 June 1983 he was placed on probation for 12 months for an offence of larceny. While on probation he was committed to an institution, on 22 March 1984, for offences of malicious injury, break and enter with intent, and stealing (two offences). Those committals were however suspended upon him entering into a good behaviour bond for 12 months. 102 The encouragement of a recognisance seemingly had no effect upon him, because, within two months, he was charged with stealing and was then, on 10 May 1984, committed again to an institution in general terms. 103 On 14 February 1985 he was recommitted to an institution in general terms for stealing a motor vehicle, and illegal use of a motor vehicle. On 27 September 1985 he was committed to an institution for two years for a total of thirteen offences of stealing a motor vehicle, five offences of malicious injury, one offence of escaping lawful custody, one offence of absconding from proper custody, one offence of stealing, as well as offences of unlicensed driver, driving in a manner dangerous and negligent driving. 104 On 14 October 1985 he was committed to an institution for 12 months for offences of break enter and steal, and stealing, and for 15 months for offences of take and drive conveyance, unlicensed driving, and two offences of stealing motor vehicles. 105 Just seven days later on 21 October 1985 he was committed to an institution for an accumulation of three months for one offence of stealing a motor vehicle. 106 On 18 December 1985 he was again committed to an institution in general terms for a further offence of absconding and for illegal use of a conveyance, while on 20 January 1986 he was again back in the Children's Court and recommitted to an institution in general terms for two further offences of absconding and two offences of stealing. 107 On 28 February 1986 he was committed to an institution for 18 months for one offence of absconding lawful custody, one offence of malicious injury, two offences of stealing a motor vehicle, and three offences of unlicensed driver. 108 On 11 March 1986 he was committed to an institution for 2 years for three offences of stealing a motor vehicle, one offence of malicious injury, one offence of escaping lawful custody and two offences of break enter and steal. Nine days later, on 20 March 1986 he was committed to an institution for 3 years for offences of take and drive conveyance and absconding. 109 On 1 July 1986 he was again committed to an institution in general terms for four offences of escape lawful custody, and four offences of absconding. 110 On 15 July 1986 he was again committed to an institution for 3 years for illegal use of a motor vehicle, unlicensed driving and absconding. 111 On 21 January 1987 he was committed to an institution for 3 months for absconding from lawful custody. 112 On 8 July 1987 sentences committing him to an institution were suspended conditional upon him entering into a 12 months community service order for two offences of possess an implement to enter a conveyance, two offences of take and drive, one offence of malicious injury and one offence of illegal use of a conveyance. 113 On 17 August 1987 a control order for 18 months was imposed when he appeared on two further counts of stealing a motor vehicle. 114 On 25 January 1988 a control order for 2 years with a 12 months non probation order was imposed for an offence of stealing a motor vehicle, and a control order for 6 months was imposed for an offence of malicious injury. 115 On 15 February 1988 control orders were made for 21 days for an offence of escaping lawful custody, and of 2 years with a non probation period of 2 months for offences of stealing a motor vehicle and possession of implements. 116 On 6 September 1988 and on 22 September 1988 control orders of 6 months and of 1 month were imposed respectively for offences of malicious injury and attempting to escape lawful custody (two counts). 117 On 4 October 1988 another control order, this time for 4 months, was imposed for an offence of malicious damage. This was followed by another control order on 14 November 1988 of 3 months for yet another offence of escape lawful custody; on 21 November 1989 by a control order for 6 months for an offence of break enter and steal; and on 14 February 1990, by control orders for 12 months for offences of break enter and steal and carry a cutting implement. 118 This brought to an end the Prisoner's appearance in the Children's Courts of this State which had seen him sentenced by Courts at Cobham, Yasmar, Minda, Bidura, Yass, Orange, Kempsy and Tamworth. 119 His record, however continued unabated in Local Courts and in the District Court. 120 On 17 March 1989 a control order for 12 months with a non probation period of 5 months was imposed in the District Court in Parramatta for an indictable assault. 121 On 20 July 1989 he was sentenced to 6 months hard labour, and fined in the Local Court of Port Macquarie for driving in a manner dangerous. 122 On 1 September 1989 he was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months, in the District Court at Port Macquarie for an offence of possession of property stolen outside the State. Sentences of 3 years and 2 years were imposed for offences of stealing and possessing household implements. 123 On 2 April 1990 the Prisoner was sentenced in the Burwood Local Court to imprisonment for 18 months for an offence of break enter and steal, for 12 months for offences of malicious damage and illegal use of a motor vehicle, for 15 months for an offence of possessing implements, for 3 months for failure to appear, and for 12 months for stealing a motor vehicle. 124 On 10 May 1990 cumulative control orders were imposed in the Sydney District Court of 6 months for four offences of larceny of a motor vehicle. 125 On 10 July 1990 he was sentenced in the Local Court at Cessnock to a fixed term of 6 months for malicious damage. On 18 May 1993 he was given separate fixed terms each of 6 months for offences of illegal use of a conveyance, disqualified driver, drive manner dangerous, and possess implements. 126 On 12 February 1996 he was sentenced in the Parramatta District Court to a fixed term of 18 months for offences of break enter and steal and larceny of a motor vehicle and to concurrent terms of 12 months for possession of implements, larceny, larceny of a motor vehicle and possession of housebreaking implements. On the same date, he was also sentenced to a fixed term of 2 years for an offence of accessory after the fact to malicious wounding; to a minimum term of 2 years 6 months with an additional term of 2 years for an offence of assault with intent to rob while armed; and to a fixed term of 12 months for a further offence of possess implements. All of these sentences were set to commence on the same day, but to the extent of the overlap there was an accumulation. Additionally on the same date a concurrent fixed term of 9 months was set for an offence of escape lawful custody. 127 On 25 February 1998 at Fairfield Local Court the Prisoner was sentenced to a minimum term of 12 months with an additional term of 4 months for an offence of stealing a motor vehicle, and to fixed terms of 6 months each for offences of driving in a manner dangerous and possessing a prohibited drug. Upon appeal the last two convictions and sentences were confirmed but the sentence was reduced to a minimum term of 8 months with an additional term of 8 months. 128 On 7 August 1998 he was sentenced in the Sydney District Court to a fixed term of 3 months for attempted escape. 129 On 27 July 2000 the Prisoner was sentenced in the Liverpool District Court to imprisonment for 5 years with a 2 year non-parole period for an offence of robbery in company, commencing from 23 September 1999. He was sentenced to a concurrent term of 2 years, in the same Court on the same date for a further offence of robbery in company. 130 On 21 November 2002 in the Liverpool Local Court he was sentenced to fixed terms each of 6 months for offences of assaulting an officer in the execution of his duty, possessing implements, take and drive conveyance, custody of a knife in a public place and possession of equipment for the administration of drugs. 131 Finally on 8 December 2004 the Prisoner was sentenced in the Local Court for eight offences: one offence of goods in custody, two firearms offences, two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, one offence of assault police, one offence of resist police, and one offence of drive conveyance without consent, to concurrent terms of imprisonment totalling 12 months arising out of the events which are later referred to in these reasons, as being the events which on the Prisoner's account preceded the sustained period of criminality that most recently brought him back into the criminal justice system. 132 I have omitted from this dismal record a number of offences that were dealt with by way of a fine, or by the Prisoner being sentenced to the rising of the Court, or taken into account in relation to other matters. 133 While most of the offences related to offences of dishonesty, particularly involving the stealing or unlawful use of motor vehicles, the overall seriousness of which risks being overstated if attention is confined to their number, the record also includes other serious matters. It also presents a picture of wilful disobedience to the law, a complete failure on the Prisoner's part to respond to any of the opportunities that have been provided for rehabilitation and for supervision, as well as an escalating pattern of criminality. 134 The net result has seen him in almost continuous custody, in one form or another, between the age of 11 years and his current age of 33 years.

The Evidence Tendered by the Prisoner 135 It is necessary to refer to the evidence which was placed before me in an attempt to understand why the Prisoner has engaged in such unremitting and escalating criminality. It came from the Prisoner, his mother and Anna Robilliard, a forensic psychologist and it shows that the Prisoner was born on 25 May 1971. He was apparently the youngest in a family comprising on his account 10 siblings. His mother, who is an indigenous Australian worked as a nurse, while his father worked as a removalist. It was reported that the family home had been stable and that his parents have a close continuing relationship. The case is not one where the Fernando considerations (R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58) apply. 136 The Prisoner claimed to Ms Robilliard that he was sexually molested by one of his step brothers for a period of two years or so, commencing when he was aged eight years. He eventually ran away from home and began to associate and identify with a delinquent peer group. It was at that stage of his criminal behaviour that detention in boys homes commenced. At one stage he was placed in foster care but ran back home as he did not care for that experience. 137 He was educated in the community to part way through Year 8, and thereafter continued his education, on an intermittent basis, while in custody, which regrettably included learning, from older boys, how to steal motor vehicles. He does not seem to have passed beyond Year 10, and has never held down any form of employment, although he has acquired some training and experience as a welder and labourer while in custody. 138 He has been involved in some short term unstable relationships which collapsed because of his imprisonment. The last relationship ran into problems because of his use of drugs and his friendship with another woman, which apparently led to a fight between her and his partner. The Prisoner became involved in this altercation, and was charged with several offences, although on his account unfairly. 139 It was by reason of his concern about being sent back to prison because of these charges, and his lack of confidence in the solicitor who was acting for him that, he said, led to him not appearing in court. It was also this factor, he says, that sent him seriously off the rails in 2003, and led him into an escalating use of illegal drugs and to the saga of criminality that now sees him awaiting sentence for the 19 offences which I have mentioned. 140 The Prisoner informed Anna Robilliard that he had sniffed glue and petrol in late childhood but gave that practice away because of an unfortunate experience while in a detention centre. In his evidence he claimed to have commenced sniffing these substances at the age of eight or nine years. 141 He began to smoke cannabis, although not to any great extent, preferring to smoke heroin, a practice which he says he began in late 1997 while in Lithgow Correctional Centre. Following his release from custody in mid 2003, he stopped using heroin in favour of smoking "shabu" or "ice", in the free base form of methamphetamine. 142 His intelligence has been assessed as falling within the average range. From Ms Robilliard's report, it appears that psychological testing has shown that he has a "highly significant score on a dimension measuring symptoms of paranoid personal disorder", as well as "significant scores on the dependent, depressive, antisocial, avoidant, schizoid and passive/aggressive scales in that order". 143 Ms Robilliard reported: "The central issue for people suffering Paranoid Personality Disorder is suspiciousness and defensiveness combined with feelings of superiority. They are likely to feel bitter toward other people who have been successful and deny their own shortcomings, often blaming others as the cause. They are constantly vigilant, expecting others to criticise, deceive or injure them, and innocuous events will be perceived as insults or attempts to control and manipulate them. Responses will frequently be abrasive, touchy, hostile and irritable. The self fulfilling nature of Paranoid Disorder reinforces the patterns of behaviour. Others react to them negatively thus reinforcing their perception of the world as a dangerous and insecure place. Paranoid disorder in combination with Schizoid and Avoidant personality attributes, results in a progressively more insular, reclusive and socially isolated disposition. Insularity is intended to protect the individual from fears that others may be able to influence or control them. In combination with Passive/Aggressive personality attributes, paranoid presentation would represent an exaggeration of the persons' fault finding, resentful and discontented characteristics. Antisocial personality attributes are consistent with an history of criminal behaviour and substance abuse. Impulsive acting out of antisocial feelings is the hallmark and these individuals who are typically interpersonally irresponsible violating the personal rights of others in work, relationship and financial context." 144 Ms Robilliard also reported: "On the section of the test that measures current reactive mood states and behaviours, significant scores on this profile are on scales measuring Anxiety, Dysthymia, Drug Dependence and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The highest score, which is on the Dysthymia scale, is equivalent to reactive depression. The individual is acknowledging feelings of sadness, pessimism, hopelessness, apathy, low self-esteem and guilt, which are directly related to current life events and circumstances. A sense of futility generally pervades their thinking and they are pre-occupied with their own inadequacy and helplessness. Suicidal ideation may be present and should be monitored." 145 Of concern, apart from the foregoing, is the history which the Prisoner provided to Ms Robilliard of having a sense of hopelessness, and of his idea about the future being "a blank", as well as her assessment that the current offences took place at a time when his life was in chaos and that the more chaotic he felt the greater the amount of drugs he used. She thought him likely to become fragile, and possibly self destructive after sentencing was completed. Clearly the correctional authorities will need to give careful attention to this, as he has a history of attempted suicide. 146 Ms Robilliard found no signs of psychiatric illness, such experience that he had had in the past of paranoid and delusional episodes having been attributable in her view to heavy drug use. 147 Attention was drawn by Ms Robilliard to the fact that Robert Julien in Primer of Drug Action (2001) describes ice as: "a free base form of methamphetamine". In other words 'ice is to methamphetamine as crack is to cocaine: the free base concentrated smokable form of the parent compound. Unlike crack, methamphetamine has an extremely long half life (about 12 hours) resulting in an intense, persistent drug action. Repeated high dosage of methamphetamines are associated with violent behaviour and paranoid psychosis…Just as prolonged cocaine use can result in psychoses resembling paranoid schizophrenia, smoking ice produces a pattern of acute, delusional and psychotic behaviour. However, unlike that of cocaine, amphetamine induced psychosis can persist for several weeks." 148 In a lengthy report that was tendered by the defence, Associate Professor Starmer described the effects of methamphetamine, cannabis and cocaine use. 149 In relation to the substance methamphetamine, of which crystallised "ice" tends to be a very pure form, he explained that it "can have an effect in increasing libido, and a speeding of mental processes to the extent that the subject becomes submerged in a flood of thought associations, so that the attention jumps rapidly and ineffectually from one thought to another, as in a manic psychosis". He also stated that high doses can result in the development of an amphetamine psychosis, which is characterised by intense emotional lability, hallucinatory phenomena and paranoid ideation in a setting of clear consciousness, and which closely resembles schizophrenia. He also indicated that the substance may lead to thought disorder, and that withdrawal can lead to amphetamine "crash", which involves a depressive phase, fatigue, and suicidal tendencies. 150 Otherwise he referred to the well known effects of chronic cannabis and cocaine use, in relation, for example, to impairment of memory, concentration, cerebration, and elevated mood or euphoria; which do not require any greater analysis. Professor Starmer observed, finally, that while it is entirely possible that a change in behaviour can be attributed to the use of "ice", that would require a close examination of time-relationships between its use and the change in the pattern of offending. 151 The Prisoner did claim in his evidence that his use of this substance escalated after the assault charges had been brought, and that the more he smoked this substance the more he committed offences. He also said that he had not considered that the further offences mattered because of the likely consequences of the assault charges. The proceeds of the robberies he said he used to purchase more drugs. 152 On his account the whole period was quite unreal and he cannot believe the mess in which he found himself. Otherwise there is very little material available upon which I can determine the extent of his use of "ice" or its time relationship to the offences. That it had some effect may be accepted, but it is also not to be overlooked that the Prisoner had anything but a good record before the assault charges, and there is very strong evidence that he was already committed to a life of crime. 153 In relation to the murder offence, he said that it had been his intention, having checked out the location and the habits of the deceased, to wait for his departure, to open the boot of his car, to grab his bag with the day's takings, and to then run. The plan went astray, on his account, when the deceased seized his arm as he tried to operate the boot release, and held onto him and yelled out. 154 He said that he pulled out the gun, which he had previously loaded, in an attempt to scare off the deceased, but when he continued to struggle with him, the weapon discharged inflicting the fatal wound. 155 He said that he had been smoking "ice" before committing the offence, and had not realised, until the following day, that the victim had died. 156 He indicated that he had difficulty in talking about his emotions, but said that he felt "pretty bad" about this offence and that he felt "sorry" for the victim's family, although he acknowledged that was a "feeble" word to express his feelings. He claimed to have had bad dreams about the incident, and had acknowledged his guilt to police to get it off his conscience, an observation which does not sit well with his continuing offending after this offence, or with his attempt to escape arrest on 22 August 2003. 157 One might have expected that, having killed in the course of a robbery, he would have refrained from any further robberies using a gun had he been truly remorseful for the murder. To the contrary he committed a large number of further robberies over the course of which he presented the same weapon at his victims. His explanation to the effect that he had pushed the earlier murder to the back of his mind does not sit comfortably with him having entertained any great concern over that offence. 158 In relation to the offences involving Ms EC, he asserted that he had also taken drugs before its commission, and had gone to the shopping centre where the hijack occurred, only with the intention of stealing a motor vehicle, and without any plan to have forced sexual intercourse with anyone. He acknowledged that when he had been interviewed by police, he had been prepared to admit his guilt, but had not wanted to talk about the matter because he felt ashamed and embarrassed about his conduct. He claimed to feel "bad" about the victim. 159 The selection of the victim's motor vehicle, with her sitting inside it was, on his account, a spur of the moment decision, although as he conceded he and his companion had been casing the area for some time looking for a suitable vehicle to steal. 160 When asked what he had attempted to do in the past to address his drug habit, he said that he had approached several medical practitioners for help, but had been turned away as they did not treat "junkies". He also said that he had never been offered any assistance while in custody, and that during his last release, he had tried home detoxification but that it had only lasted a few weeks, having been interrupted because of his relationship problems and the assault charges. 161 His mother gave evidence to the effect that he had first fallen into trouble due to the encouragement of the boyfriend of one of his sisters, who had been a car thief, and that from the age of ten or eleven until the age of seventeen he had spent most of his life in boys homes. Thereafter, until his latest release, she said he had spent most of his life in adult prisons. 162 She also said that his last release had been his longest period outside and confirmed that he had tried to obtain assistance from medical practitioners, without success. She had enlisted the aid of the Aboriginal Health Service, and as a result he had tried detoxification at home. She also confirmed that he had gone off the rails again as a result of his concern that his parole would be revoked by reason of the assault charges, which he had described as having been a police set up. 163 She said that both she and her husband had health problems which made it difficult for them to visit him in custody. She had however seen him twice since his arrest on 22 August 2003, and noticed that he had put on weight and looked "like [her] son again". She said that he phoned his family daily and had sent letters to them apologising and expressing regret for what he had done. She also noted that he has said that he now has "no future".

Remorse 164 I accept that the Prisoner does entertain some remorse concerning his extended criminality, although that is largely confined to the murder and the sexual assault of Ms EC, and was not of sufficient weight to deter him from re-offending in a very significant way. 165 While almost certainly a significant part of that remorse relates to his own circumstances, I am prepared to accept, by reason of the pleas and his evidence, that he has some limited insight into the stupidity and violence of his past behaviour, so far as his inhibitions were reduced by his abuse of narcotic drugs.

Drugs 166 Precisely which drugs he was using during the period covered by the indictments is not entirely clear, since somewhat different histories have been given. I accept that they included "ice"; and if Professor Starmer's history is correct they may also have included cannabis, heroin and cocaine. 167 The abuse of drugs by the Prisoner helps to explain his behaviour but it does not excuse it. 168 In relation to this aspect of the case the principles which I set out in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 and which were approved by the remainder of the Bench, are applicable to the sentencing of the Prisoner. They are to the following effect: "273. In my view the relevant principles are as follows: (a) the need to acquire funds to support a drug habit, even a severe habit, is not an excuse to commit an armed robbery or any similar offence, and of itself is not a matter of mitigation; (b) however the fact that an offence is motivated by such a need may be taken into account as a factor relevant to the objective criminality of the offence in so far as it may throw light on matters such as: (i) the impulsivity of the offence and the extent of any planning for it; (cf Bouchard (1996) 84 A Crim R 499 at 501-2); and Nolan (1988) VSCA 135 (2 December 1998); (ii) the existence or non existence of any alternative reason that may have operated in aggravation of the offence, eg that it was motivated to fund some other serious criminal venture or to support a campaign of terrorism; (iii) the state of mind or capacity of the offender to exercise judgment, eg if he or she was in the grips of an extreme state of withdrawal of the kind that may have led to a frank disorder of thought processes or to the act being other than a willed act; (c) It may also be relevant as a subjective circumstance, in so far as the origin or extent of the addiction, and any attempts to overcome it, might: (i) impact upon the prospects of recidivism/rehabilitation, in which respect it may on occasions prove to be a two-edged sword (eg Lewis Court of Criminal Appeal New South Wales 1 July 1992); (ii) suggest that the addiction was not a matter of personal choice but was attributable to some other event for which the offender was not primarily responsible, for example where it arose as the result of the medical prescription of potentially addictive drugs following injury, illness, or surgery (cf Hodge Court of Criminal Appeal New South Wales 2 November 1993; and Talbot ); or where it occurred at a very young age, or in a person whose mental or intellectual capacity was impaired, so that their ability to exercise appropriate judgment or choice was incomplete; (iii) justify special consideration in the case of offenders judged to be at the "cross roads": Osenkowski (19882) 5 A Crim R 394. 274. To go further, and to accept the fact of drug addiction as a mitigating factor generally, would not be justified in principle. Moreover, it would involve an exercise in irresponsibility on the part of the Court, if it were understood as a message that committing the crime of armed robbery to feed a drug habit is less deserving of censure than would otherwise be the case."

The Pleas of Guilty 169 It may be accepted that the pleas of guilty to the 19 counts, and the admission of the Form 1 offences, has had a very great utility in saving the time and costs of the courts and of policing/prosecution agencies, and has also avoided the need for witnesses, who were no doubt traumatised by the offences, to undergo the ordeal of giving evidence. 170 The value of the pleas, and the contrition associated therewith, or otherwise evidenced, are such that discounts in the upper range of those considered in Regina v Thomson and Houlten (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 would have been appropriate had the various offences stood alone. A discount in the range of 20 to 25% remains appropriate for all of the offences, except for the offences of aggravated sexual assault in company and of murder, the enormity of which, and the circumstances in which they occurred, having been such that the utilitarian principle should yield to the public interest in securing a very heavy sentence for those offences: R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152 and Regina v Thomson and Houlten at 158. 171 Although it was submitted that absent the Prisoner's confession the Crown would have found difficulty in proving his guilt of the murder offence, that overlooks the ballistics and fingerprint evidence, the fact that he was arrested in circumstances where the weapon was linked to him, and the availability of eyewitness evidence.

Form 1 Offences 172 In so far as offences have been taken into account on a Form 1, they are to be dealt with according to the principles established in the guideline judgment of this Court: Attorney General's Application Under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 per Spigelman CJ: "39. The sentencing court is sentencing only for the "principal offence". It is no part of the task of the sentencing court to determine appropriate sentences for offences listed on a Form 1 or to determine the overall sentence that would be appropriate for all the offences and then apply a "discount" for the use of the procedure. This is not sentencing for the principal offence. … 42. The position, in my opinion, is that, although a court is sentencing for a particular offence, it takes into account the matters for which guilt has been admitted, with a view to increasing the penalty that would otherwise be appropriate for the particular offence. The Court does so by giving greater weight to two elements which are always material in the sentencing process. The first is the need for personal deterrence, which the commission of the other offences will frequently indicate, ought to be given greater weight by reason of the course of conduct in which the accused has engaged. The second is the community's entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences which there are offences for which no punishment has in fact been imposed. These elements are entitled to greater weight than they may otherwise be given when sentencing for the primary offence. There are matters which limit the extent to which this is so. The express provision in s 33(3) referring to the maximum penalty for the primary offence is one. The principle of totality is another.

… 44. The manner and degree to which the Form 1 offences can impinge upon elements relevant to sentencing for the principal offence will depend on a range of other factors pertinent to those elements and the weight to be given to them in the overall sentencing task. For that reason it will rarely be appropriate for a sentencing judge to attempt to quantify the effect on the sentence of taking into account Form 1 offences. (See R v Kay at [69].)"

173 I voiced some concern in relation to the Hoang Thi Nguyen and Thi Thanh Ho indictment, in so far as the Crown elected to charge the Prisoner, in Count 3, with the armed robbery of Hoang Thi Nguyen's mobile phone and to include on a Form 1, in relation to that offence, two further armed robbery offences involving the stealing from Thi Thanh Ho of the sums of $3000 and $6000. I was however informed that this followed upon negotiations between the parties which preceded the taking of pleas in the District Court. 174 Although this was somewhat irregular, particularly in the light of the observations of Spigelman CJ in the guideline judgment at paras 49 and 50, I am satisfied that no material unfairness arises for either the Crown, the community or the Prisoner in following this course in the circumstances of this case. 175 I also voiced some concern as to whether the Prisoner had been appropriately charged with a s 154AA or s 154A offence in relation to the three charges of stealing a motor vehicle which were involved in the 29 November indictment (the Central Coast offences), since in at least two cases the offence seemed more akin to take and drive offences than stealing. I was again informed that the pleas followed upon negotiations which preceded the Prisoner's committal for sentence and which led to a number of other associated matters being dealt with on a Form 1. Upon the basis that the charges, framed in terms of stealing, were take and drive offences, I will allow the convictions to stand. Again, in the context of the Prisoner's overall criminality, these offences pale into insignificance and do not materially contribute to the sentencing exercise.

Vulnerability of the Victims 176 A further aspect of relevance in this case is the fact that most of the victims were in a position of vulnerability in so far as they were robbed while working in shops or in similar places of business: R v Thwaites NSWCCA 6 October 1993; or were the subject of bag snatches while leaving work: R v Ranse NSWCCA 8 August 1994, or were the subject of sexual assault: O'Grady NSWCCA 13 May 1997. 177 In each instance the fact of vulnerability is an aggravating feature, attracting a need for a condign sentence.

Offences Committed while on Parole 178 All of the offences were committed while the Prisoner was on parole for the matters referred to in para 129 above, a matter of serious aggravation for the reasons referred to in R v + NSWCCA 7 May 1991, R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28, R v Huynh [2003] NSWCCA 239 and R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109.

Deterrence 179 Although it is clear that the passing of sentences of imprisonment on the Prisoner in the past has had little or no effect on him by way of personal deterrence, that does not mean that he should not continue to receive such sentences. 180 More important however in this case is the need for a significant element of general deterrence to be built into the sentences for the reasons discussed in R v Sharma [2002] NSWCCA 142 where Spigelman CJ said: " Armed robberies of the character involved in the present proceedings, committed by young persons, generally with an addiction problem, are so prevalent that the objective of general deterrence is entitled to significant weight in the process of sentencing for this offence, notwithstanding the youth of the typical offender."

Totality and prior record 181 The case is one where the totality of the criminality involved has to be taken into account in structuring the sentences, not only for offences which formed part of one incident, but between each separate group of offences, in accordance with the principles outlined in Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at paras 45 to 48; Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15 and R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66. 182 The effect of these decisions is to require an appropriate sentence to be fixed for each offence, after which consideration is to be given to questions of concurrence or accumulation, including the "stepping stage" process referred to in R v Finnie [2002] NSWCCA 533 where there are offences charged on separate indictments, or involving separate episodes of criminality, such that the totality principle referred to in Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 applies. The present case is one of escalating criminality of a very serious kind which, for the reasons identified in R v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152 at paras 38 and 39, calls for significant sentences in relation to the multiple offences of armed robbery. The use of a knife and a gun in these robberies, while elements of the offences charged, do make them particularly serious, having regard to the inevitable fear and trauma occasioned to victims who are confronted with weapons of this kind and then forced to give up their property. 183 In relation to these offences of armed robbery, the guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 applies. In most instances features (ii), (iv), (v) and (vii) mentioned at para 162 of that judgment were present. In some instances aggravating circumstances were present in so far as substantial amounts of money were taken, and there was planning. In no case did the Prisoner answer feature (i). 184 Similarly the offences of aggravated sexual assault in company called for condign sentences and an accumulation upon the sentences passed by Judge Finnane for the reasons identified in R v AEM and Ors [2002] NSWCCA 58 relating inter alia to denunciation and general deterrence. 185 The proper approach in a case where an offender has a prior record, or faces sentence for a series of later offences committed during an extended period, is captured by s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and also by the "rule of law" which became established at common law, and which was identified in Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 where Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson and Toohey JJ said (at 477): "… the antecedent criminal history of an offender is a factor which may be taken into account in determining the sentence to be imposed, but it cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offence. To do so would be to impose a fresh penalty for past offences: Director of Public Prosecutions v. Ottewell (1970) AC 642, at p 650. The antecedent criminal history is relevant, however, to show whether the instant offence is an uncharacteristic aberration or whether the offender has manifested in his commission of the instant offence a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law. In the latter case, retribution, deterrence and protection of society may all indicate that a more severe penalty is warranted. It is legitimate to take account of the antecedent criminal history when it illuminates the moral culpability of the offender in the instant case, or shows his dangerous propensity or shows a need to impose condign punishment to deter the offender and other offenders from committing further offences of a like kind. Counsel for the applicant submitted that antecedent criminal history was relevant only to a prisoner's claim for leniency. That is not and has never been the approach of the courts in this country and it would be at odds with the community's understanding of what is relevant to the assessment of criminal penalties." 186 The Veen (No 2) principle was described by Howie J in R v Shankley (Glen William) [2003] NSWCCA 253, in the following terms (at para 31): "The effect of the prior criminal record of the offender, where it is relevant to sentencing, is not to increase the objective seriousness of the offence committed but rather that 'retribution, deterrence and protection of society may indicate a more severe sentence is warranted'." 187 That this rule of law is to be taken into account was confirmed in Regina v Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 76, where the repetition of firearms offences was held to be capable of illuminating his moral culpability and of demonstrating the particular need for both general and personal deterrence see also R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152. 188 Although, in a very broad way, all of the offences were committed in the course of an extended bout of criminality, they did involve different victims, each of whose lives has been affected significantly. That circumstance must be reflected in the total sentence and cannot be glossed over by reference to the totality principle which is designed to prevent accumulation to the point where the overall sentence is harsh and disproportionate: see R v Cotter [2003] NSWCCA 273 and R v KM and Ors [2004] NSWCCA 65 at paras 55 and 56. 189 The perception that there is not much to choose between a person who commits one or two offences and one who commits six or seven offences cannot be permitted to take hold, as Sully J said in R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34 at paras 34 and 37. 190 Offences committed following the commission of any of the offences for which the Prisoner stands for sentence can also properly be taken into account: Regina v Hutchins (1958) 75 WN (NSW) 75. 191 Moreover, even though the Prisoner has indicated an intention to lodge an appeal against the convictions and sentences in the trial before Judge Finnane, those convictions and sentences do need to be taken into account by me. They are not to be regarded as having involved provisional verdicts or sentences: R v Sinanovic [2000] NSWCCA 394. 192 The effect of the very heavy sentences imposed by Finnane DCJ would be to lead to a virtual life sentence if there were to be any accumulation, upon those sentences (either on the non-parole period or a large proportion of it), that are appropriate, in this case, for the armed robbery and aggravated sexual assault offences, leaving aside the sentence for the murder count. This does provide something of a conundrum in the present case, particularly if those sentences are successfully appealed. I propose to resolve that by imposing sentences which I consider individually appropriate, and by postponing their commencement by 5 years from the time of arrest, so as to allow for a partial accumulation, and more importantly, to take the offences dealt with by Finnane DCJ into consideration, so far as they are relevant for my assessment of the Prisoner's dangerousness and prospects of rehabilitation, which are of central importance for the sentence in relation to the murder count.

Standard non-parole periods 193 As I have observed, the offences of murder, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated carjacking are offences for which standard non-parole periods apply. While it was held in R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131 that these periods were intended to apply to offences of a middle range of seriousness decided after trial, they still take their place as a reference point in cases where there have been pleas of guilty: R v Davies [2004] NSWCCA 319 and see also R v Goodwin [2004] NSWSC 757. 194 I propose to approach the sentencing of the Prisoner for these charges on that basis.

Special circumstances 195 While matters such as an accumulation of sentence and the need for extended supervision following the return of a Prisoner to the community, after serving very lengthy periods in custody, would qualify as special circumstances within the meaning of s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, the nature of the sentences which I consider is required in this case, means that there is no occasion for the power reserved in s 44(2) to be invoked, save in the one respect later mentioned. 196 Otherwise the case is one where all factors, including matters of accumulation and totality of criminality, and any subjective features of relevance, will be taken into account in fixing the non-parole periods and any balance of term. The principles discussed in Regina v Simpson (2001) 126 A Crim R 525 and R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172 apply.

Dangerousness to the Community 197 While it may be accepted that the Prisoner had used drugs at the time of the relevant offences, his behaviour at the scene of the various crimes does not suggest that he was other than aware of what he was doing or in full control of the situation. He had chosen his targets with some care, and the offences were premeditated, although perhaps with the exception of the sexual assault of Ms EC, which in all probability involved a spur of the moment decision. 198 Of concern is the fact that for a number of the offences for which I am to impose sentence, and also for the offences which were dealt with by Judge Finnane, the Prisoner had taken younger males with him. The encouragement that he was giving these young persons to follow him into a life of crime was particularly discreditable. It indicates not only that he presents as a danger to the community, but underlines the need for the sentences to demonstrate, by way of deterrence, the consequences for any offender who choses to follow in the footsteps of the Prisoner. 199 It is rare that one can say, with any confidence, that a Prisoner presents a very serious ongoing danger to the community, or that his rehabilitation prospects are negligible. The present however is a case where I am satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt, although it does not have to be established to that standard (R v SLD [2003] NSWCCA 310 and R v McNamara [2004] NSWCCA 42) that each finding should be made. 200 That this is so appears from the lengthy record of the prisoner, the very great objective culpability involved in each of the offences before me, the number of these offences, and the appalling criminality involved in the offences for which he was sentenced by Judge Finnane. The Prisoner has shown himself to have no regard for person or property, he has ignored the lessons which his prior sentences should have conveyed, and he has effectively placed himself outside all normal standards of behaviour or constraints of civilised living. The manner in which he posed with a fistful of bank notes and with a pistol on his hip in the photograph which was tendered, says much as to the way in which he regards himself. 201 The psychological profile similarly holds out very little hope of him ever being rehabilitated, or of controlling his aggressive and dangerous impulses. He came from a supportive family. While it was a big family which had its own problems, with the exception of the alleged sexual abuse by a step brother, of which no evidence came from the Prisoner or his mother, there is nothing to suggest that his early years were particularly dysfunctional. 202 His subsequent periods of custody either in boys homes, in detention centres or in adult prisons have, no doubt, hardened him to the point where, if he is not already institutionalised, he is very close to it. Again, his history of almost continuous detention away from his family, and the inevitable exposure to delinquent peer behaviour almost certainly go a long way to explaining where he is today, and why he has chosen to continue offending. 203 It may be accepted that prolonged imprisonment, particularly in maximum security, which is the lot of the most serious offender and also of the offender with a history of escape, such as the Prisoner, offers little encouragement or opportunity for reform. Rehabilitation, however, is only one of the objectives of sentencing which are specified in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The courts have no alternative to imposing custodial sentences for serial offenders and habitual criminals, such as the Prisoner, and it does not sit well in their mouths to assert that the fact of imprisonment has hardened them or set them more firmly on the path of crime. 204 While it is hard for an offender to rehabilitate himself, or to abandon the use of drugs, it can be done, and there are opportunities for rebuilding lives available for those who chose to use them 205 As I have observed the Prisoner in this case has not altered his course, and his history, personality, and level of criminality of the most sustained and serious kind, shows that he is an ongoing danger to the community, and one of the relatively rare offenders who falls into the category of offender mentioned in the passage from Veen v The Queen (No 2) cited earlier in these reasons. 206 To that principle is added the circumstance that s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act lists the protection of the community as one of the several purposes of sentencing which also include adequate punishment, personal and general deterrence, denunciation, accountability and recognition of the harm done to the victim and the community, in addition to that of rehabilitation. 207 The protection of society has long been an important theme in sentencing: R v Valentini (1980) 2 A Crim R 170 at 174, and R v Cuthbert (1967) 86 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 272 and it now clearly stands as a sentencing objective in its own right. 208 That would not justify a departure from the equally long standing principle of the need for proportionality of the sentence to the offence before the Court, nor would it of itself justify purely preventative detention. Nevertheless it is a matter properly to be taken into account in the way recognised in Veen v The Queen (No 2).

THE SENTENCES 209 In the light of these principles and findings I will now deal with each of the 19 offences.

Count 1: Aggravated Car Jacking 210 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating factors mentioned in s 21A(2)(d), (j), (m) and (n) which were not elements of the offence. The only mitigating factor present was that referred to in s 21A(3)(k), namely the plea of guilty which I take into account. It is a standard non-parole period offence, and the Table provides a reference point. It was a particularly serious offence of its kind. 211 For this offence I sentence the Prisoner to a fixed term of imprisonment for 4 years to commence on 22 August 2008 and to expire on 21 August 2012.

Counts 2 and 3: Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company 212 These were the offences involving digital and vaginal penetration, and they were offences where there were present the aggravating features mentioned in s 21A(2), (d), (g), (j), (l) and (m), which were not elements of the offence. The only mitigating factors were those referred to in s 21A(3), (b) and (k), each of which I take into account. They were standard non-parole period offences, and the Table provides a reference point. Each was a particularly serious offence of its kind. 213 For these offences I sentence the Prisoner to concurrent non-parole periods each of 12 years to date from 22 August 2008 and to expire on 21 August 2020, and to a balance of parole of 4 years expiring on 21 August 2024.

Count 4: Aggravated Robbery Being Armed with a Dangerous Weapon 214 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating factors mentioned in s 21A(2), (d), (e), (j), (m) and (n), not being elements of the offence. The only mitigating factor was that referred to in s 21A(3)(k), which I take into account. It is an offence within the Henry guideline, and I sentence the Prisoner to a fixed term of imprisonment for 5 years to date from 22 August 2009 and to expire on 21 August 2014.

Count 5: Specially Aggravated Kidnapping 215 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating factors mentioned in s 21A(2), (d), (g), (j), (l), (m) and (n) not being elements of the offence. The only mitigating factor was that referred to in s 21A(3)(k) which I take into account. I sentence the Prisoner to a fixed term of imprisonment for 3 years to date from 22 August 2010 and to expire on 21 August 2013.

Count 6: Attempt to Obtain Money by Deception 216 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating features mentioned in s 21A(2)(d), (j), (m) and (n), not being elements of the offence. The only mitigating circumstances present were those referred to in s 21A(3)(a) and (k) which I take into account. I sentence the Prisoner to a fixed term of imprisonment for 18 months to date from 22 August 2010 and to expire on 21 February 2012. 217 The effective overall sentence imposed in relation to this indictment accordingly involves a non-parole period of 12 years, commencing on 22 August 2008 and expiring on 21 August 2020 and a balance of term of 4 years expiring on 21 August 2024. 218 Where fixed terms have been imposed that is because they are wholly subsumed in the sentences for Counts 2 and 3 and in the case of Count 6 because it is intrinsically linked with Count 5. There has been some accumulation of sentence to mark the totality of the criminality involved in these offences which continued for some time, and involved separate and very serious offences.

Count 3: Robbery While Armed with an Offensive Weapon 219 This was an offence where there was present the aggravating factors mentioned in s 21A(2)(d), (j), (l), (m) and (n) which were not elements of the offence. The only mitigating factor present was that referred to in s 21A(3)(k) which I take into account. It falls within the Henry guideline, and it is an offence in respect of which two further similar offences, one committed on the same day, and one committed three days earlier, is to be taken into account on a Form 1. 220 Taking these matters on the Form 1 into account I sentence the Prisoner in relation to this offence to a non-parole period of 6 years to date from 22 August 2019 and to expire on 21 August 2025, and to a balance of parole of 2 years, to expire on 21 August 2027.

Count 4: Robbery While Armed with an Offensive Weapon 221 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating factors mentioned in s 21A(2)(d), (j) and (n) which were not an element of it. The only mitigating factor was that mentioned in s 21A(2)(k) which I take into account. It is also a case within the Henry Guideline. I sentence the Prisoner to a fixed term of 4 years to date from 22 August 2021 and to expire on 21 August 2025.

Count 5: Robbery while Armed with a Dangerous Weapon 222 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating factors mentioned in s 21A(2)(d), (e), (j), (l), (m) and (n) which were not elements of it. The only mitigating factor present was that referred to in s 21A(3)(k) which I take into account. It was also a case within the Henry guideline, and one where I am to take into account, on a Form 1, an offence of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon involving a quite separate victim and place, an offence of take and drive associated with that offence, and an aggravated kidnapping associated with the offence the subject of this count. 223 I impose a non-parole period of 7 years to date from 22 August 2023 to expire on 21 August 2030 with a balance of term of 2 years to expire on 21 August 2032. 224 The effective overall sentence for the counts in this indictment is accordingly one involving a non-parole period of 11 years commencing from 22 August 2019 and expiring on 21 August 2030 with a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 21 August 2032. 225 The individual sentences have been accumulated to reflect the significant and separate criminality involved in the three separate incidents charged, along with the Form 1 matters, bearing also in mind the offences for which sentences have been imposed in relation to the first indictment, as well as the sentences imposed by Judge Finnane in relation to the offences which (apart from two Form 1 matters) had preceded these offences.

The murder of Emad Youssef 226 This is an offence where the aggravating factors mentioned in s 21A(d), (g), (i), (j), (l), (m) and (n) were present, not being elements of the offence. The only mitigating factor present was that referred to in s 21A(3)(k) which I take into account. 227 It is a standard non-parole period offence. Standing alone, it would not have qualified for a life sentence in accordance with s 61 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act as the application of that section was explained in R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409, although the circumstances of its commission, in the light of the Prisoner's record prior to his last release on parole would have justified a non-parole period of at least twenty years. 228 Its commission is now to be considered in the light of the fact that it followed the very serious offences of armed robbery and aggravated sexual assault which have been dealt with pursuant to the other indictments before me. It also follows the quite appalling offences in reference to which the Prisoner had been sentenced by Judge Finnane. It involved not only an utter recklessness and disregard of human life, but it also occurred in the course of a planned armed robbery. I am of the view that the level of culpability in its commission, even though it was a case of felony murder, combined with my finding of the dangerousness of the Prisoner to the community, and his negligible prospects of rehabilitation, are such that the objectives of punishment spelled out in s 3A, leave me with no alternative other than to impose the maximum sentence of imprisonment for life. 229 Accordingly, in relation to this Count I sentence the Prisoner to imprisonment for life. The commencement date of this sentence is of little moment, but for convenience I will direct that it commence from the time of the Prisoner's arrest, namely 22 August 2003.

Count 1: Robbery while Armed with a Dangerous Weapon 230 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating factors mentioned in s 21A(2)(d), (e), (j), (l), (m) and (n) not being elements of it. The only mitigating factor was that mentioned in s 21A(3)(k) which I take into account. It was a case falling within the Henry guideline. 231 I sentence the Prisoner in relation to this offence to a fixed term of 5 years to date from 22 August 2026 to expire 21 August 2031.

Count 2: Steal Motor Vehicle 232 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating factors mentioned in s 21A(2)(d), (e), (j), (m) and (n) not being elements of it. The only mitigating factors were those referred to in s 21A(3)(a) and (k), which I take into account. It was closely associated with Count 1 and I sentence the Prisoner to a concurrent fixed term of 1 year to date from 22 August 2026, and to expire on 21 August 2027.

Count 3: Robbery while Armed with a Dangerous Weapon 233 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating factors mentioned in s 21A(2), (d), (e), (j), (l) and (m) which were not elements of it. The only mitigating factors were those referred to in s 21A(3)(a) and (k) which I take into account. It was a case within the Henry guideline and it was carried out only 5 days after the offence in Count 1. I sentence the Prisoner for this offence to a fixed term of 5 years from 22 August 2027 to expire on 21 August 2032.

Count 4: Robbery while Armed with A Dangerous Weapon 234 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating factors referred to in s 21A(2)(d), (j), (l), and (n), which were not elements of it. There were present the mitigating factors mentioned in s 21A(3)(a) and (k) which I take into account. 235 Although the offence was potentially very serious and frightening for the victims, the actual property stolen was of limited value. It was however a case within the Henry guideline. I sentence the prisoner for this count to a fixed term of 5 years to commence from 22 August 2027 and expiring on 21 August 2032.

Count 5: Robbery while Armed with a Dangerous Weapon 236 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating factors referred to in s 21A(2)(d), (g), (j), (l), (m) and (n), which were not elements of it. The only mitigating factor that was present was that referred to in s 21A(3)(k) which I take into account. It was also a case within the Henry guideline and it was committed only one day after the offence in Count 4. 237 I sentence the prisoner for this count to a fixed term of 5 years to commence from 22 August 2028 and to expire on 21 August 2033.

Count 6: Robbery while Armed with a Dangerous Weapon 238 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating factors referred to in s 21A(2)(d), (e), (j), (m) and (n) which were not elements of it. The mitigating factors present were those referred to in s 21A(3)(a) and (k) which I take into account. 239 It was a case within the Henry guideline. Having regard to its close connection with the offence charged in Count 5, and the trivial amount taken, I sentence the Prisoner to a fixed term of imprisonment for 2 years to commence from 22 August 2028 and to expire on 21 August 2030, to be served concurrently with the sentence for Count 5.

Count 7: Robbery while Armed with a Dangerous Weapon 240 This was an offence where there were present the aggravating features referred to in s 21A(2)(d), (g), (j), (l), (m) and (n) which were not elements of it. The only mitigating factor present was that referred to in s 21A(3)(k) which I take into account. 241 It was a case within the Henry guideline, and it followed close on the heels of the offences otherwise charged in this indictment. Moreover I am to take into account four offences on a Form 1, two of which were closely associated with other offences that were charged. The other two offences were of limited seriousness, although they were part of the ongoing criminal activities of the Prisoner which he had apparently moved from Sydney to the Central Coast. 242 For these offences, taking into account the Form 1 matters, I sentence the Prisoner to a non-parole period of 7 years to date from 22 August 2029 and to expire on 21 August 2036 and to a balance of parole of 8 years, expiring on 21 August 2044. The case is one where, subject to the life sentence surviving any appeal, there is justification, by reason of the special circumstances previously mentioned, to allow for an extended period of supervision on parole, it being the last sentence in a series of accumulated sentences. The period of 8 years is less than that which is contemplated by s 44 of the Act, and represents a lower proportion than is the norm when the overall sentence is taken into account. However, any longer period would not have served any useful purpose.

Counts 8 and 9: Steal Motor Vehicle 243 In this case there were present the aggravating factors referred to in s 21A(2)(d), (j) and (n), which were not elements of it. There were present the mitigating factors referred to in s 21A(3)(a) and (k), which I take into account. 244 By reason of their close association with the other offences in each case I sentence the Prisoner to fixed terms of imprisonment of 2 years to date from 22 August 2029 and to expire on 21 August 2031 and upon that basis to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for Count 7. 245 The effective overall sentence for the offences charged in this indictment is accordingly one providing for a total non-parole period of 10 years commencing from 22 August 2026 and expiring on 21 August 2036 with a balance of parole of 8 years expiring on 21 August 2044. 246 Leaving aside the life sentence imposed for the murder, the overall effect of all of the determinate sentences imposed is one involving a non-parole period of 28 years commencing on 22 August 2008 and expiring on 21 August 2036 with a balance of term of 8 years expiring on 21 August 2044. They will be wholly absorbed in the life sentence, but the sentences have been formulated in the manner set forth, since they individually indicate the seriousness which attached to this section of the Prisoner's saga of criminality. As a consequence they form part of my reasons for imposing the life sentence for murder. 247 Other than where fixed terms have been imposed, I have taken the course of setting sentences with non-parole periods and balances of terms since, in imposing the life sentence for the murder count, I have attached considerable weight to the offences of which the Prisoner was convicted after trial before Judge Finnane and a jury, and for which the Prisoner was effectively sentenced to a non-parole period of 30 years and a balance of parole of 10 years. The commission of those offences in a context where they followed the offences charged in the first indictment before me, and preceded the offences charged in the remaining indictments, was of particular significance in my assessment of the Prisoner's dangerousness to the community and to the weight to be given to each of the s 3A sentencing objectives. 248 I recognise that, in the event of the Appellant successfully appealing against the convictions for the matters dealt with by Finnane DCJ, and being acquitted after retrial or otherwise, then occasion may well arise for the life sentence to be reviewed on appeal. 249 The current case is one where, for similar reasons to those outlined by me in Regina v Harris it would, in my view, have been far preferable for the Court to have retained a capacity to specify a lengthy non-parole period for the murder offence, given the extremely harsh consequences of a life sentence for a 33 year old, with no hope of release, and no incentive for rehabilitation. **********

Last Modified: 12/21/2004 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.