Regina v Christov

CATCHWORDS : Criminal Practice & Procedure - murder - sentence - two Form 1 motor vehicle matters - standard non parole period 20 years - whether offence in mid range - reasons to moderate standard non parole - offender aged 54 years at time of offence.

Crimes Act 1900 LEGISLATION CITED : Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

R v Christov [2006] NSWSC 972 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 CASES CITED : R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575 MLP v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 271 Holyoak v Regina (1995) 82 A Crim R 502 R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76

PARTIES : Regina Ivan Christov

COUNSEL : D Howard SC (Crown) C Nash/D Kang (Acc)

SOLICITORS : T Hammond - DPP (Crown) Ford Criminal Lawyers (Acc)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION CRIMINAL LIST

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE 1 KIRBY J: At about 1.00 am on 11 January 2004, the body of Lynette Phillips was found in the front bedroom of her home at Engadine. She had been strangled. Two ligatures had been tied tightly around her neck. Ambulance officers were unable to revive her. They ceased any attempt at resuscitation at 1.45 am. 2 Mr Christov was charged with her murder. On 28 August 2006, having been arraigned before me in respect of that charge, he pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter. It was said that he was substantially impaired by reason of an abnormality of mind. The Crown, however, refused to accept the plea of manslaughter. The matter proceeded on the charge of murder. Mr Christov, with the consent of the Crown, elected to be tried by a Judge sitting alone. Having heard the evidence, I gave judgment on 22 September 2006 (R v Christov [2006] NSWSC 972). I found Mr Christov guilty of the murder of Lynette Phillips. 3 When submissions on sentence were made on 27 October 2006, the Crown asked, with the consent of Mr Christov, to have two outstanding charges added to the matter for sentence on a Form 1. The matters were: · first, that on 10/11 January 2004, Mr Christov stole a motor vehicle, the property of Lynette Phillips (s154AA(1) Crimes Act 1900); · secondly, that on 12 January 2004 he drove a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public (s42(2) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999). 4 Originally, the offences on the Form 1 were to be dealt with pursuant to a certificate from the Local Court under s166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. In that context, the Crown urged that the sentences imposed should be made concurrent with the sentence imposed for murder. There were, however, difficulties in proceeding in that manner. Ultimately the Crown, with the consent of Mr Christov, determined that the offences should be placed on a Form 1. 5 It remains for me to pass sentence. To do so, I must first determine the facts relevant to the sentencing discretion. They must be determined in a manner consistent with the verdict of guilty of murder. Where the facts are adverse, they must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Where they favour Mr Christov, it is enough that they should be proved on the balance of probabilities.

The relationship between Mr Christov and Ms Phillips. 6 Mr Christov was born in Czechoslovakia on 26 July 1950. He came to Australia in about 1970. He is a tall man (5'11" to 6') weighing in excess of 100 kilograms. He worked as a truck driver. 7 In September 2003, Mr Christov returned to Sydney from an interstate trip late on a Friday night. He was too late to pick up his wages. He went to a pawn shop in Rockdale, The Rockdale Trading Centre. He intended to pawn his mobile phone to give him enough money for the weekend. Ms Phillips, was the owner of that business. She met Mr Christov the following week when he returned to reclaim his phone. 8 Mr Christov invited Ms Phillips to coffee. She accepted his invitation. They began seeing each other and soon formed a relationship. According to staff members at The Rockdale Trading Centre, Ms Phillips at first seemed happy. She referred to Mr Christov as "her boyfriend". He periodically stayed at her home at Engadine. However, after several months the relationship soured. In November 2004 they parted. They came back together again shortly before Christmas, and spent Christmas and New Year together. 9 On 2 January 2004, however, Ms Phillips determined that she would end the relationship. In a statement made before her death she said, and I accept, that she said goodbye to Mr Christov, whereupon he physically put his arms around her and would not let her go. He only released her once she screamed. Nonetheless, he later telephoned her at home repeatedly, and came to her house. She would not permit him entry. 10 The next day, 3 January 2004, Mr Christov went back to the pawn shop at Rockdale. He refused to leave. He eventually left once Ms Phillips called the police. It was clear from the accounts given by a number of employees that Ms Phillips was frightened of Mr Christov. 11 The following day, Sunday 4 January 2004, there was a further incident. Mr Christov again went to The Rockdale Trading Centre. He banged on the door and ultimately placed his foot in the door so that it could not be closed. Ms Phillips repeatedly asked him to leave her alone. He then said this: "You're picking on the wrong person; you'll play fire with fire." 12 Ms Phillips, at that point, pressed the duress alarm, which alerted the police. Mr Christov closed the door and left. The police arrived at about 4.15 pm. They discussed with Ms Phillips the prospect of obtaining an Apprehended Violence Order. There were difficulties. Mr Christov had broken no law. The police officer said, nonetheless, that she would make enquiries concerning Mr Christov. 13 There was evidence that, after speaking to the police, Ms Phillips may have met Mr Christov in a coffee shop at Sutherland. The evidence was puzzling because, later that evening, Ms Phillips made a statement to the police complaining about Mr Christov. On balance, although recognising that the matter is uncertain, I think it likely that Ms Phillips did see Mr Christov shortly before she went home on Sunday, 4 January 2004. She agreed to meet in a public place, no doubt hoping they could have a civilized parting. 14 The police, in the meantime, made enquiries concerning Mr Christov. They discovered that he had a criminal history. That history was later described by police in the application for an Apprehended Violence Order in these terms: "The defendant has an extensive criminal history, which includes 3 counts of sexual assault, numerous assault charges and has been the defendant of 7 previous domestic matters, the majority of which involved similar circumstances of a threatening and stalking behaviour. It is the defendant's criminal history that has prompted police to apply for an order." 15 That information, no doubt, was communicated by the police to Ms Phillips. The police told her that they entertained fears for her safety. Arrangements were made immediately for Ms Phillips to make a statement in support of the application for the Apprehended Violence Order. She attended the police station and completed the statement the same day. From that point, it cannot be doubted that Ms Phillips wanted nothing further to do with Mr Christov and was frightened of him. 16 However, Mr Christov was not prepared to accept her decision. She confided to a friend on 6 January 2004 that she had seen his distinctive car driving past her home. 17 Meanwhile, the application for the Apprehended Violence Order was filed. It was made returnable on 22 January 2004. Attempts were then made to locate Mr Christov to serve him with the application, but without success. 18 On Thursday, 8 January 2004, an employee of The Rockdale Trading Centre saw Mr Christov having coffee across the road from the shop. Ms Phillips at the time was absent from Sydney on the mid north coast, staying with her daughter. The employee spoke to Mr Christov, who enquired whether Ms Phillips had returned from her holiday. During the course of the conversation he said this: "If she's riding a vehicle I hope she has an accident and I hope she dies, don't worry about Danny, her daughter I don't want her dead." 19 Mr Christov then drove a truck to Wagga Wagga making a delivery and returning to Sydney on Friday 9 January 2004. Late that day he dropped off a note at Ms Phillips' home. The note was a love letter of sorts, although with ominous references to death. 20 Ms Phillips returned to Sydney on Friday 9 January 2004. She was obviously concerned about Mr Christov. She spoke at length about her concerns to a friend, Mrs Sonia Mapp. It may be inferred that, later that evening, she got the note from Mr Christov.

Saturday 10 January 2004. 21 One then comes to the day of the murder, Saturday 10 January 2004. Ms Phillips left her home at Engadine some time after 7.30 am to drive to work at Rockdale. As she was driving along the highway, Mr Christov drove up behind her in his distinctive white car. He repeatedly flashed his headlights. Ultimately, Ms Phillips pulled over to the side of the road. As he began talking to her, she pressed 000 on her mobile telephone. The conversation commenced at 7.49 am. It was overheard by the operator at the Emergency Service 000 and was recorded. However, it was a very one-sided conversation. Ms Phillips made the following comment and then said very little else: "Look, I don't want to upset you, but I don't have to go out with you and I'm not ... " 22 She was then interrupted by Mr Christov. He told her that he was still in love with her. However, his words were mingled with threats. Amongst other things he said this: "... I don't hate you yet. I don't hate you. I not gunna hurt you. ... I don't hate you. I never gunna hurt you ... If I gunna hurt you, then I'm gunna hurt you mental, in the head ... " 23 Mr Christov invited Ms Phillips to re-read his letter. He said: "I'm gonna die tonight." 24 They then parted. Ms Phillips immediately spoke to the 000 Operator who had been listening to the conversation. He advised her to drive directly to a police station and make a statement. She did so. She was then accompanied by two uniformed officers as she drove to work at Rockdale. 25 Ms Phillips remained at work throughout Saturday 10 January. At approximately 4.00 pm she again spoke to police. She discussed the service of the Apprehended Violence Order, offering advice about where Mr Christov might be located so that he could be served. Between 6.30 and 7.30 pm she drove to her daughter's home at Blakehurst for a barbeque. She spent the evening with her daughter and partner. Both described her as upset. She again spoke of her fear of Mr Christov. Ms Phillips left her daughter's home at about 10.00 pm, intending to drive to her own home in Engadine. She had previously made arrangements to pick up her youngest daughter, Danielle, from a party at about midnight. 26 Mr Christov, meanwhile, drove to Engadine at about midday. He parked his car in the street behind the home of Lynette Phillips. There was a connecting lane from that street to Higgerson Avenue where Ms Phillips lived. Mr Christov was observed walking along that lane shortly after midday. Danielle, Ms Phillips' daughter, was at home until 2.00 pm when she left for work. At some point thereafter Mr Christov gained entry to the house, although the means by which he did so was uncertain. He then lay in wait for Ms Phillips. At some stage he entered an upstairs bedroom. Within a bedroom cupboard there was a pair of women's shoes. Mr Christov removed a shoelace from one of the shoes. As stated in my previous judgment (para [132]), I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, at the time Mr Christov removed the shoelace, he recognised that it could be used to strangle Lynette Phillips. I accept the possibility that he had not necessarily, at that point, formed the intention of killing Ms Phillips. Although he deeply resented her attitude, he still harboured feelings of love towards her. I believe, at that point, his intention was confrontation, where the issue would be sorted out one way or another. 27 Ms Phillips returned home some time after 10.00 pm. She was completely unaware of Mr Christov's presence in her home. She settled down with a cup of tea to watch television. I think it likely that she positioned a kitchen knife alongside her for protection, because she feared Mr Christov. 28 Mr Christov then appeared. One can only imagine the terror that Ms Phillips must have felt upon seeing him. I think it likely that she took hold of the knife once he appeared. I infer that she held it in front of her to defend herself (R v Christov (supra) para [138]). No doubt Mr Christov endeavoured to persuade Ms Phillips to resume their relationship and was met with resistance. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that he then formed the intention of killling her. 29 Ms Phillips was a small woman. Although she had a knife, she was confronted by a much larger and determined man. Mr Christov attempted to take the knife from her and, in the process, received a laceration to his hand, as did Ms Phillips. Once he had taken the knife, she was defenceless. He then assaulted her, as he acknowledged. He slapped her face and endeavoured, manually, to throttle her. He then tied the shoelace tightly around her neck with a knot at the back. He later took hold of a leather dog lead and cut the metal clasp from the end. The clasp was underneath Ms Phillips when she was found. Mr Christov used the lead as a further ligature around her neck. Again it was tied tightly with a knot at the back. 30 Both ligatures were later tested and found to have DNA with a profile that matched that of Mr Christov. Mr Christov claimed that he had no memory of having tied the ligatures. I reject his account. I have no doubt that he knew exactly what he was doing. 31 As I remarked in my previous judgment, the puzzle in this tragedy concerns two telephone calls made by Lynette Phillips at 11.08 pm. They were directed to 000 and her daughter. Nothing was said in either call before each was terminated. The calls were clearly an attempt to seek help. Ms Phillips either could not, or dare not, speak. Again, one can only imagine her terror. 32 Mr Christov then left the house. It is reasonable to infer that he did so in a hurry. He did not retrieve the handkerchief and car keys which he had left in the cupboard upstairs. Instead, he took Ms Phillips' car keys and her car. The taking of the car is the first matter on the Form 1. 33 On Wednesday 12 January 2004, at 4.34 am, a little less than thirty hours after leaving Ms Phillips' home, Mr Christov was seen by the police driving her car on the Hume Highway towards Wagga Wagga. There followed a high speed police chase over a number of kilometres. Spikes were then placed on the road, which deflated the tyres of the vehicle Mr Christov was driving. Nonetheless, he kept driving on the rims of the vehicle at high speed for a further four kilometres. The vehicle ultimately left the road and crashed into a stand of trees. Mr Christov was injured and taken by ambulance to the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. The chase is the second matter on the Form 1. 34 When Mr Christov left the house at Engadine, Ms Phillips was still alive. She was left to die slowly of asphyxiation. Her daughter arrived home shortly after 1.00 am. A flicker of life remained at that point. The ambulance officers, as mentioned, ceased their attempts at resuscitation at 1.45 am.

The subjective case. 35 Let me turn from the circumstances of the offence, to the circumstances of Mr Christov himself. Whilst it appeared that there may be some doubt as to his correct age, it became clear that he was born on 26 July 1950. He was therefore 53 years old at the time of the offence. He has been in custody since 12 January 2004. He is now 56 years old. 36 Mr Christov has, as mentioned, a criminal record. He was convicted of a number of offences in South Australia soon after his arrival in Australia in 1970. Relevantly, he was convicted in 1975 of a series of offences which included assault. The incident which gave rise to these charges was the subject of much evidence in the trial. It was relevant to the psychiatric issues investigated during the trial. Mr Christov, when about 24 years old, was rejected by a woman with whom he had been having a relationship. He went to the woman's home with a loaded rifle. He threatened her and others. The police were called. He then fled and hid up a tree. Once discovered by the police, he shot himself in the jaw. He was later charged with attempted murder and acquitted. He was subsequently convicted of lesser charges, namely, several counts of assault. He was also found to be unfit to possess a firearm. One gathers that he had spent time in custody awaiting trial on the more serious charge. He was ultimately placed upon a bond in respect of the lesser charges. 37 In the years that followed, Mr Christov had a number of relationships. Some were quite lengthy. He never married, but he did have a number of children. He was, during this period, convicted of a number of offences of dishonesty. He was either fined or required to enter a recognisance. In 1986 he was imprisoned for six months, having been convicted of break, enter and steal. 38 In 1996, Mr Christov was involved in a further incident. He had formed a relationship with another woman over a period of three months. The woman attempted to end the relationship. Mr Christov went to her home, armed with a knife. He assaulted the woman, stabbed her in the right thigh, and ultimately barricaded himself and the victim in her room. The siege lasted a number of hours. A police negotiator eventually persuaded Mr Christov to release the victim and then give himself up. He was convicted of unlawfully imprisoning the victim and having maliciously wounded her (two counts). He was sentenced to fixed terms of imprisonment of twelve months concurrent in respect of each charge of malicious wounding, and to a minimum term of seven months with an additional term of two years, partially concurrent, in respect of the remaining charge. 39 Mr Christov has a long history of substance abuse. In his early years he used a number of drugs recreationally, including cocaine. When he became a truck driver in 1994, he began using massive amounts of amphetamines. On occasions these drugs induced psychotic effects. In these proceedings, Mr Christov was examined by two forensic psychiatrists. There were differences in their diagnoses. However, both agreed that Mr Christov suffered from poly-substance abuse. Dr Giuffrida said, and I accept, that such long term abuse has affected Mr Christov's behaviour. He has become increasingly irritable, angry and subject to explosive fits of temper. For the reasons I stated in my first judgment, I do not believe that Mr Christov was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind. I accept, nonetheless, that to some degree Mr Christov was impaired by reason of his prolonged drug abuse. Nonetheless, I believe, as the Crown submitted, that his crime in murdering Ms Phillips was fundamentally a function of his personality and attitude, rather than any such impairment. Moreover, his criminal record does not entitle him to any leniency. 40 When giving evidence, Mr Christov expressed remorse. It appeared to be genuine (T331). He has now been in custody for almost three years. In that time he has behaved well. He says, and I accept, that he has abstained from drug taking whilst in gaol. He spent a period of six months in protection (19 March 2004 to 18 September 2004) during a time that he was suffering from a back condition. The prison authorities believed he may be vulnerable and should be removed from the general prison. He has since returned to the ordinary gaol. He has been made a sweeper, which is a position of trust. 41 Dr Skinner, psychiatrist, was asked to consider the issue of dangerousness, that being relevant to Mr Christov's prospects of rehabilitation. Her conclusion was in these terms: (Ex B on Sentence: p4) "From the information available it appears that Mr Christov's behaviour has been controlled rather than impulsive. I do not consider that he would present a risk to the community at large on release. There would be a risk of violence towards persons with whom he develops relationships, and that risk is significantly increased by his poly-substance abuse." 42 Ms Nash of counsel submitted that, for a number of reasons, Mr Christov should be regarded as having good prospects of rehabilitation, and unlikely to present any future danger. First, having been convicted of murder, he will inevitably be sentenced to a significant term of imprisonment. By the time he emerges from gaol, he will be considerably older. Secondly, Dr Skinner associated Mr Christov's offending behaviour with drug taking. As mentioned, Mr Christov has abstained from drug taking whilst in prison. He is likely to abstain for the duration of his term. Such a significant period of abstinence would make relapse unlikely. Thirdly, there is the suggestion in Mr Christov's medical history that he was given hormone injections in 1995, possibly because of sexual dysfunction. Such problems, if they existed, are likely to get worse with age. Finally, once eligible for parole and before release, Mr Christov will, no doubt, be re-examined medically so that there will be a further opportunity for assessment. 43 I accept these submissions. I believe that Mr Christov's prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable.

The standard non parole period. 44 I then come to the issue of sentence. Submissions were made on behalf of Mr Christov that the crime did not warrant a life sentence under s61 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ("the Act"), that is, a sentence of life imprisonment without the prospect of release on parole. The Crown did not suggest that such a sentence was appropriate. Although the crime committed by Mr Christov was brutal and horrifying, I do not believe it comes within the worst category. 45 I must therefore fix a term of imprisonment and a non parole period. The Act has fixed a "standard non parole period" of twenty years imprisonment in respect of a person convicted of murder. The issue is whether the standard non parole period should be adopted in the case of Mr Christov. It represents "an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness" (s54A(2) of the Act). In considering whether the standard non parole period should be adopted or moderated, the Court is obliged to address a number of issues as set out in R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168; R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575; MLP v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 271 at para [33]. 46 In characterising whether the offence falls within the mid range, the Court must have regard to aggravating or mitigating factors relating to the offence (including the offender's state of mind) as set out in s21A of the Act. There are a number of such matters. First, unquestionably, there was a degree of planning and premeditation. Mr Christov entered the house without invitation. He removed the shoelace from the shoe in the upstairs bedroom and he lay in wait for the victim. I cannot say beyond reasonable doubt that he intended, at that point, to kill Lynette Phillips, since there is at least a reasonable possibility that he intended to confront her. Nonetheless, I have no doubt he recognised the potential for violence in that confrontation. Secondly, whatever his intentions when he entered the house, there is no question that eventually Mr Christov formed an intention to kill Lynette Phillips and did so in a determined manner, notwithstanding the knife which she held to protect herself. Thirdly, the crime itself was brutal, callous and cowardly. It was an attack upon a much smaller woman who had been rendered defenceless. Not one, but two, ligatures were tightly tied around her neck. She was left to die slowly, no doubt conscious of her fate. 47 It was submitted on behalf of Mr Christov that there was a degree of provocation on the part of the deceased. She had been "playing with" Mr Christov's head. I reject that submission. There was no provocation. Ms Phillips made it absolutely clear that she wished to end the relationship. She had indeed ended the relationship. That was her right. 48 The Crown submitted that the level of objective seriousness of Mr Christov's crime was above the mid range. Counsel for Mr Christov submitted that the offence was "at the lower end of objective seriousness". In choosing between these submissions, and characterising the crime, the impairment suffered by Mr Christov is relevant. Dr Giuffrida said, and I accept, that psychologically Mr Christov was to some degree (although, I believe, not to a large degree) impaired by reason of his prolonged drug use. To that degree his culpability is moderated. But for that impairment, I would have characterised Mr Christov's crime as above the mid range. Taking account of the impairment, I believe it appropriate to characterise the offence as being within the mid range of objective seriousness.

Should the non parole period be moderated? 49 The next issue is whether there are reasons in the matters identified in s21A of the Act for departing from the standard non parole period? That issue requires a consideration of matters which relate to the offender, as opposed to the offence. These are matters which are usually termed "the subjective case", together with any additional matters the Court is required or permitted to take into account by any Act or rule of law. 50 Here there are four matters that seem to me to call for some moderation of the standard non parole period. First, I accept that Mr Christov does regret his actions. His remorse appeared genuine. Secondly, for a short period of about six months, Mr Christov was on Protection. I have no information about the conditions of his incarceration. However, I accept that some small adjustment to the sentence is appropriate. The reason Mr Christov was on Protection was that he had back pain, which made it difficult for him to climb stairs, and which made him vulnerable within the general prison population. On the day submissions were made on sentence in this Court, it was evident that Mr Christov again had back pain. I have no medical evidence. I accept, nonetheless, that he does have a back disability which is likely to get worse with increasing years and likely to make gaol more onerous for him. Thirdly, for the reasons stated, I accept that Mr Christov's prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable. 51 That brings me to the final matter, which is one of some importance, that is, Mr Christov's age. His sentence will obviously be backdated to 12 January 2004 when he entered custody. Mr Christov is aged 56 years. His relatively advanced age is a relevant consideration. In Holyoak v Regina (1995) 82 A Crim R 502, Allen J identified three reasons why age should be taken into account (Handley JA and Hulme J agreeing). The first was expressed in these terms: (at 507) "It is, of course, clear that a sentence imposed upon an offender when he [is] of such an age that, should he not die in gaol, he will have little worthwhile life left after his release is likely to bear more heavily upon the offender than a similar term imposed upon a younger man who can look forward to a worthwhile life after release. This is so obvious that I would not infer that his Honour did not recognise it." 52 His Honour added: (at 507) "Of course, account must be taken of how much more onerous it will be for him to serve a gaol sentence than it would be if he were younger. That is material to the appropriate length of the full-time custody." 53 Secondly, advanced age is also relevant to the suitability of the case as a vehicle for general deterrence. Thirdly, it must be acknowledged that gaol can be a dangerous place where there is the risk of violence at the hands of other prisoners. Advanced age may put a prisoner at a disadvantage. On the other hand, Mr Christov is a tall and large man and there is no suggestion that he had been subjected to brutality to this point. 54 These matters in combination, and especially Mr Christov's age, make it appropriate in my view to moderate to some degree the standard non parole period. 55 Murder has always been regarded as the most serious crime in the criminal calendar. Absent extraordinary circumstance, it calls for a substantial sentence by way of imprisonment to serve the interests of punishment, including denunciation and general deterrence. The crime was, as I have said, a brutal, callous and cowardly act directed against a much smaller and defenceless woman. 56 I have a number of victim impact statements from members of Lynette Phillips' family. One is from her daughter, Danielle, who was seventeen years old at the time of her mother's death, and who came upon her mother's body lying on the floor of the family home. I have a statement from her son, Adam, who records the changes to his life and his deep sorrow at his mother's senseless death. There is, as well, a poignant statement from Lynette Phillips' sister, Valerie, who's life has been thrown into turmoil and who experiences daily the effects of this family tragedy. One can only imagine the anguish to Lynette Phillips' mother who has been required to endure the loss of her daughter. 57 I must, of course, deal with this material in a manner consistent with the principles in R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76 at 85.

Special circumstances. 58 Counsel for Mr Christov has urged a finding of special circumstances. The age of Mr Christov and his history with drugs and alcohol would ordinarily justify such a finding. However, in the case of murder, inevitably the parole period will be lengthy and usually adequate for the supervision and guidance which Mr Christov will require upon release. I have made a small adjustment to the sentence. 59 Ivan CHRISTOV, taking account of the matters on the Form 1, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of 23 years commencing on 12 January 2004 and expiring on 11 January 2027. I fix a non parole period of 17 years, commencing on 12 January 2004. The balance of the term will therefore be 6 years. The first date upon which you will be eligible for release on parole is 11 January 2021. **********

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.