District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v PLW [2022] NSWDC 561 Hearing dates: Friday 27 May 2022 Date of orders: Tuesday 31 May 2022 Decision date: 31 May 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Tupman DCJ Decision: The offender is convicted on all offences. Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 of 6 years with an aggregate non-parole period of 4 years with parole thereafter of 2 years. Catchwords: CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child <10 — Three victims — Four substantive offences — Three Form 1 offences — Offender is now aged 55 — Offender was in his early-to-mid-thirties at the time of offending — Offender was a family relation to two victims — Offender was in a relationship with the mother of one victim — Offences range from below to the middle of the range of objective seriousness — Offender diagnosed with depression and has other medical issues — Offender has problem with alcohol and was likely intoxicated during some of the offending behaviour — Offender pleaded guilty at earliest opportunity — Assessed as a medium risk of reoffending generally, but a below average risk of sexual reoffending — Relatively good prospects of rehabilitation — Two victim impact statements provided and taken into account. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): ss 66A, 61M(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW): ss 25AA, 32, 53A. Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (The Crown) PLW (The Offender) Representation: Counsel: Mr. G. Porter (The Crown) Mr. J. V. Sabharwal (The Offender) Solicitors: Mr. Grant Gaynor (The Crown) Mr. T. Pasipanodya (The Offender) File Number(s): 2021/00063518 Publication restriction: Section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) applies. There is to be no publication of anything which may identify the names of the complainants, including the name of the offender. Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: This is the matter of PLW who is before Court for sentence on four substantive offences of child sexual assault involving three different victims. He pleaded guilty to these offences in the Local Court and also indicated that he would plead guilty to three further offences which are now to be taken into account as additional offences pursuant to s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). 2. The early pleas of guilty in the Local Court mean that he is entitled to a 25% discount on what would otherwise be the appropriate sentences as a result of the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea Scheme. Three of the substantive offences and two of the Form 1 offences are contrary to s 66A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), namely that on a particular date he had sexual intercourse with a child then aged under 10. All of these offences occurred sometime between 2001 and 2004 when the maximum penalty for this offence was 20 years imprisonment and there was no standard non parole period. 3. One of the substantive offences and one of the Form 1 offences are contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, namely offences of indecently assaulting a child under the age of 16. The time period for these offences is between April 2002 and July 2004. As such, the maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment. There was no standard non parole period relevant at the time. Specifically, the charges are as follows: Sequence 1: That during January 2001 the offender had sexual intercourse with CB, who was then aged 8. When sentencing for sequence 1, the offender asked that I take into account another offence, namely sequence 2, being a further offence of having sexual intercourse with the same named victim during the same time period when he was 8. Sequence 8: This is a further substantive offence that in the period between January 2001 and December 2002 he had sexual intercourse with AB, who was then aged between 5 and 7. Sequence 9: This is a further substantive offence involving the same victim AB and is another offence of having sexual intercourse with her during the same time period when she was aged between 5 and 7. When sentencing for sequence 9, he asks that I take into account yet another charge of sexual intercourse with AB, which is sequence 10, occurring sometime between April 2002 and July 2004 when AB was aged between 6 and 9. 4. The remaining two offences are one substantive offence with an additional offence to be taken into account on the Form 1, as follows: Sequence 6: This is a charge of indecently assaulting the victim EH sometime between January 2002 and December 2003 when she was aged between 11 and 13. He asks that when sentencing for this matter I take into account an additional offence, being a further indecent assault of the same victim occurring during the same time period, which is sequence 7. Agreed Facts 1. The facts are before the Court by way of agreed facts. I accept that the mother of CB and AB was a relative of the offender and lived in Queanbeyan with these children and other siblings. Between 1998 and 2000, the offender worked in Queanbeyan in a day job and also as a taxi driver at night. He would visit the children's mother and they would go out together to drink at a club in Queanbeyan and he would often sleep at their home either on a couch or in the bedrooms where the children slept. CB shared a bedroom in that house with his two brothers and AB shared a bedroom with her sister. In early 2001 the offender met EH's mother, and they commenced a relationship. He stopped visiting the other children's mother as often but continued to do so from time to time. 2. Sequence 1 involves one of these occasions during January 2001. CB was on the top bunk of a bunk bed. The offender went into the room, climbed onto the top bunk bed where CB was, pulled back the blanket and pulled down his pants. CB woke up to notice the offender on top of him. The offender then sucked CB's penis for some time. He told him, according to the facts, "Shh". CB could smell alcohol on him at the time. He stopped and left the room and CB went back to sleep. CB was 8 at the time. 3. The relevant Form 1 offence occurred not long afterwards and in similar circumstances. Again, CB was on the top bunk and his brother was on the bottom bunk in their bedroom. CB had gone to bed between 8.00 and 8.30 and fell asleep. He awoke to find the offender sucking his penis again. Again, the offender said , "Shh", and CB could smell alcohol on him. This continued for some time before the offender stopped. This is sequence 2, the Form 1 offence relevant for sequence 1. 4. Sequences 8, 9 and 10 occurred in the same premises during the period between January 2001 and December 2002. The victim AB shared a room with her sister in the house and on an occasion in this period, she was on the top bunk and her sister was on the bottom bunk. Their mother came in to say goodnight and then left. The offender then entered the bedroom and got into the bunk bed with AB under the doona. He cuddled up to her. She thought that what he was doing was normal and she trusted him. He then put his left hand down her pyjama pants and underwear and started fondling her clitoris with his fingers. He did this for 5 to 10 minutes and then he started rubbing around the outside of her vaginal opening for some time. She was a young child, only 5 to 7 years old at the time. That is the first substantive offence, sequence 8, involving her. 5. A few weeks or months after this event, the offender was again staying at the house and went into the bedroom while AB was asleep. He got into the bunk bed with her again. Her sister was in the bottom of the bunks. He put his hands down her underwear and started playing with her clitoris and rubbed her vaginal opening for around 10 to 15 minutes. He then stopped and left the room. She was again aged between 5 and 7 at the time. That is the second substantive offence involving this complainant and is sequence 9. 6. The Form 1 attached to this second substantive offence is in a slightly different category. In early 2001, the offender had met the victim EH's mother, and they had formed a relationship as a result. He spent less time at the home where CB and AB lived in Queanbeyan. He was living at an address in Queanbeyan with his new partner at the time. 7. The Form 1 offence involving AB occurred at those new premises sometime between 2002 and 2004. She was staying the night at the offender's home and, according to the agreed facts, became homesick and so went to sleep in the bed with the offender whilst the offender's partner slept in a single bed in a separate room. The offender cuddled AB and put his hand down her underwear and rubber her clitoris in a circular motion for about 10 minutes and then stopped. Eventually she went to sleep and, presumably, so did he. The next day after she woke up, she went home and did not see the offender again for many years. This is the Form 1 offence of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 to be taken into account when sentencing for sequence 9. 8. The remaining offences involve the victim EH, who is the offender's stepdaughter, the child of the woman who he met and moved to live with in Queanbeyan in 2001. EH was her daughter from a prior relationship and was ten in 2001 when they moved to live with the offender at another address in Queanbeyan. He became her stepfather. Her mother used to work night shifts at Canberra Airport for about 3 years and he would look after EH and would sleep in the same bed as her, apparently, because EH did not want to sleep by herself. 9. One night in the period between 2002 and 2003, when EH was aged between 11 and 13, the offender was in bed with her. He was on his back, and she was on top of him. According to the agreed facts, he used both his hands to rub around her underwear line and rubbed up and down near the entrance to her vagina outside her boxer shorts with his penis, which she could apparently feel through her clothing. Whilst he was rubbing her in that area, he pushed her body up and down on his penis, but it would appear that this occurred whilst she remained clothed. He also touched her skin outside her genitalia, I assume with his hand, but the facts do not make that clear. That is the indecent assault charge, which is sequence 6. 10. The Form 1 for that occurred in similar circumstances on an occasion not long afterwards. Again, EH was in the same bed as the offender and he used both his hands to rub around her underwear line. He was on his back and she was face down on top of him. He rubbed near the outside of her vagina with both hands. Given the offence charged of indecent assault, this cannot have amounted to penetration of the genitalia. I can only infer by this that, similarly to sequence 6, it was on the outside of her clothing. EH could feel his penis on her genitalia, again, I assume, on the outside of her clothing, and again he pushed her body up and down on his penis. That is the Form 1 offence to take into account when sentencing for sequence 6. 11. These two specific offences, it is agreed, are not the only occasions on which sexual offending against EH occurred. According to the agreed facts, the offender continued to indecently assault her in this way over a period of 2 years when she was at least 10 and under 16. According to the agreed facts, these assaults occurred very frequently, and she had an expectation that whenever she went to sleep in the bed with him, this would occur. The whole family moved to another address in 2004 and, according to the agreed facts, the assaults stopped around this time. Objective Seriousness 1. I turn then to assess the objective seriousness of all the offences. They are, by definition, very serious offences. All child sexual assault offences are. Sexual assault of children robs them of their childhood. This Court is only too aware of the lifelong consequences that often flow to children who are victimised in this way. Children are entitled to have all adults give them protection and not to be used for the sexual pleasure of adults. Each offence, however, must be assessed on its own terms in relation to objective seriousness. Objective Seriousness of Offences Involving CB and AB 1. The objective seriousness for the offences involving CB and AB are informed by the following: 1. They were committed in their own home. 2. They were committed by a trusted family member who, whilst not strictly a relative, was nonetheless a trusted member of an extended family who they addressed as "Uncle". 3. The nature of the sexual intercourse. In the case of CB, it is fellatio which is, of course, serious, but does not involve penetration as such for CB. For AB, there was penetration of the external genitalia for 10 to 15 minutes, touching with his fingers, but not penetration of the vagina itself. The actual forms of sexual intercourse are relevant to assessing the objective seriousness of any such offence. 4. There was a vast age difference between the victims and the offender. CB was only 8 and AB was only between 5 and 7. The offender was 35 or 36 at the time. 5. The Crown's submission is that there was an attempt to silence the victims to prevent them from reporting these assaults by saying the words "Shh" to them. It is true that he said so, but in the circumstances, I do not regard it as a serious attempt to silence and not a matter that would increase the objective seriousness. 6. The touching which amounts to sexual intercourse was not just fleeting. It was not just touching. Whilst it was for a relatively short period of time it was nonetheless not fleeting. 1. I assess the objective seriousness of these offences of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 as being a little below the mid-range in terms of objective seriousness. This assessment does not indicate that they are anything other than serious, but rather a recognition that the range of factual circumstances capable of being charged under this section are, of course, very broad. 2. I accept that at the time the offender committed these offences against CB and AB he was more probably than not drunk and does not remember doing them. The fact that he was drunk does not impact on an assessment of his moral culpability, but it is a factor that I will take into account in due course when considering his motivation and also his risk of reoffending. Objective Seriousness of Offences Involving EH 1. The objective seriousness of the indecent assault offences involving the victim EH are informed by the following: 1. He was in a specially trusted position, being her stepfather. It is a gross breach of trust, particularly so when he had the care of EH whilst her mother was working. 2. It was in her own home where she was entitled to feel protected by all adults, and especially so a person who was in the position of parent towards her. 3. These were not two isolated incidents of indecent assault of EH but part of an ongoing course of criminal conduct over a period of 2 years of indecently assaulting her. 4. Whilst it was indecent assault and most of the touching would appear to have occurred on the outside of her clothing, there was also apparently touching of her on the skin on the outside of her genitalia and several different forms of touching, including with his penis. It was more than just fleeting, and it is a relatively serious form of indecent assault. 5. There was again a large age difference. The complainant was no older than 13 and the offender was 36 or 37 at the time. 1. I accept that the objective seriousness of the indecent assault offences is at about the mid-range for offences that are capable of being charged under this section. Formal Complaints 1. The complainants did not make any formal complaints about these assaults for some time. It is the experience of the Court that this is often the case, especially so where sexual assaults have occurred within a family setting and the perpetrators continue to reside with the victims. That is the case here for the victim EH. 2. In late 2018, the victim AB went to Queensland to visit her brother CB and his partner. She became upset one night and asked her brother whether someone had ever touched him. She then made a disclosure to her brother of the events which comprised the three counts relevant for her. CB told her that the offender had also sexually assaulted him by sucking his penis whilst he was in the bunk beds at their home in Queanbeyan. He had never disclosed this to anyone previously. 3. In about May 2019 AB told her mother that she had been molested by the offender when she was little and that CB had been molested by him too. Her mother spoke to the offender's wife in September 2019 and EH was present and overheard the telephone conversation. She complained that the same thing had happened to her. His wife confronted him and he said that he did not remember what he did when he was drunk all those years ago. 4. The following day, EH went to police and made a complaint. A number of events occurred in the meantime, including the offender's being involved in a serious car accident and requiring a period of time by way of treatment. He was not in fact arrested until 5 March 2021 and charged with the offences now before the Court. He engaged in a record of interview with police and said that he did not remember doing any of the things alleged. He was asked if there was a chance that he had done any of those things alleged to any of the complainants but simply did not remember that. He replied that it was a chance because he did lose his memory when he was intoxicated and so agreed that this was a possibility. As I have said, he was charged with the offences and was granted bail. Discount for Early Guilty Plea 1. He pleaded guilty in the Local Court at the first available opportunity and was committed for sentence to this Court. The sentence was heard on Friday, 27 May and adjourned to today for sentence judgment. He had remained on bail until 27 May, but his bail was revoked that day. His sentence will thus commence from 27 May 2022. Impact on the Victims 1. There are Victim Impact Statements from EH and AB tendered. Even without these Victim Impact Statements, the Court has institutional knowledge that children who are sexually abused, especially within families or institutions, usually suffer serious consequences which can be ongoing for their whole lives. Children who are sexually abused by adults, especially those who are either their family members or are in a quasi-family relationship with them have their trust eroded. It is the experience of the Courts that this can lead to serious psychological and often psychiatric issues. 2. The Victim Impact Statements for EH and AB indicate that this has been the case here for both of them, and they both indicate symptoms from which they continue to suffer now as adults which are very familiar to the Courts as being the consequences of childhood sexual abuse. Even without a Victim Impact Statement from him, I accept that CB is also likely to have suffered similar psychological consequences as a result of this sexual abuse. I have read these victim impact statements and taken them into account. I am not urged by the Crown to treat them as amounting to an aggravated circumstance and I do not do so. 3. It is encouraging that AB has had access to counselling which she has found beneficial. It is extremely encouraging that she expresses the belief that, in her words, "I will survive". It is to be hoped that all of these three victims will soon start to regard themselves as survivors of childhood sexual abuse and not ongoing victims so that, in fact, they can survive and, hopefully, in the future thrive. Obviously they are not likely to forget, but with help, hopefully, they will survive. 4. As I have said, the offender pleaded guilty early and is thus entitled to a 25% discount on what would otherwise be the appropriate sentences. The Offenders Subjective Circumstances 1. Turning then to the subjective circumstances surrounding the offender. He comes to court now as a man of 55. He claims that he does not remember the offences and I accept that this more probably than not is true because of his level of alcohol use and abuse at the time and continuing. As I have said, whilst it is not open to take this into account in assessing his level of moral culpability, nonetheless I accept that his pleas of guilty indicate his acceptance of what the complainants have said as being true, even though he cannot remember the events. 2. The utilitarian value of the plea is significant and is represented by the 25% discount that will be applied. He has saved the victims the need to come to Court to give evidence and ensured convictions for all of these offences. 3. There is a psychological report tendered on his behalf and a sentence assessment report. The offender grew up on a sheep farm and had a good upbringing, it would appear. He left school at 16 and went to Sydney for work, albeit it was something of a shock to do so. He is one of six children and has a good relationship with his siblings and his mother. His father passed away in 2007 and was a person who abused alcohol, with whom he had a reasonable relationship but not good a relationship like he has with his mother. 4. He completed year 10 and was not a good student and appears not to have excelled at school. He worked in Sydney with his brothers before returning home in 1987 and then moved to Queanbeyan where he lived with a relative and then started work in a job where he stayed for 20 years. He also worked at night as a taxi driver for 4 years between 1998 and 2002, the period during which most of these offences were committed. He married EH's mother in 2015 and they stayed together until 2019. When the complaints were made against him, the marriage ended, and they separated. 5. He has had both medical and mental health issues. He has been treated for mental health issues and in particular he has a history of treatment for depression and anxiety for which he has been medicated. He has also had a number of medical issues. The most significant medical issue would appear to have occurred as a result of a car accident sometime after 2019 when he fractured two vertebrae and spent 4 months in a neck brace after a period in hospital. This accident occurred after these complaints were made in 2019 and his marriage had come to an end. He had moved to Narrabri and had this car accident after overdosing on medication and rolling the car. 6. He has ongoing back pain and headaches as a result. He also has significant hearing loss in both ears and has been prescribed hearing aids, but he lost one not long after receiving them, and they cannot work because they need to work in pairs. He has not had them replaced because of both financial constraints but also self-described disorganisation. He moved to live with his mother in Yass in November 2021 after the period in hospital following the car accident. 7. He has been diagnosed as suffering from depression and takes antidepressant medication. The most significant issue involving him which has an impact on his prospects of rehabilitation and is, in my view, the explanation for his failure to remember these events is that he is almost certainly an alcoholic. He started drinking at around 13 or 14 and was drinking daily by the age of 16. 8. After he came back to live with his mother at the end of 2021 he agreed to give up drinking at her request. He remained sober for 10 weeks and has expressed to the psychologist that it was perhaps one of the most productive periods of his life. But because he more probably than not is an alcoholic and he was not receiving any treatment, he then started drinking again daily. That has led on a more recent occasion to suicidal expressions to friends whilst drunk. He cannot remember doing so. It is another incident of him blacking out when significantly intoxicated. 9. By the time he committed the offences before me, he was regularly drunk and he was also gambling. He had cut down on drinking and stayed away from poker machines, but then he started drinking again and was doing so to excess and regularly by the time he committed these offences. He has never sought rehabilitation assistance and has never received any. 10. The psychologist who prepared the report for Court, Ms Morris, has diagnosed him as suffering from two significant psychological and psychiatric conditions. One of them is ADHD. I accept her opinion as appears in paras 9.14 and 9.15 of her report. He has not ever received treatment for this even though it is likely that he has been suffering from this condition for some time, perhaps even back to childhood. He is not likely to receive medication treatment for this condition whilst in custody. It requires treatment in due course but, as I have said, he is not likely to receive medication treatment for it whilst in custody. I accept Ms Morris' opinion that effective treatment for it will require medication which is not likely to be available until he is released to parole. 11. The second condition diagnosed by her is severe alcohol use disorder. Both of these conditions require treatment whilst he remains in custody, if possible, and certainly once he is released. 12. He is assessed by Community Corrections as a medium risk of reoffending generally, but a below average risk of sexual reoffending, using the static Static-99R risk assessment took. As a result of this below average risk of reoffending he will not be eligible for either community or custody-based Corrective Services sex offenders' programs. Despite this, I accept that his prospects of rehabilitation will be assisted if he has access to other programs in gaol and on parole to treat his ongoing mental health issues, including depression and anxiety and ADHD. 13. He will not have access to alcohol whilst he remains in custody, but once he is released he will. On his previous history, unless he is given assistance and counselling immediately, he is likely to relapse into excessive alcohol abuse. He will need appropriate rehabilitation assistance both for his alcohol use disorder and also depression and anxiety and ADHD. I accept that he is below average risk for sexual reoffending. 14. Whilst the actual offences here are very serious and clearly would cause concern about issues of paedophilia and therefore are relevant in assessing ongoing risk, they were committed by him whilst he was drunk. There is no evidence that when he was not intoxicated he was sexually attracted to children. What is more, there is nothing to indicate that he either continued to commit these offences against EH after 2004, even though they continued to be part of the same household until 2019, nor anything on his record to indicate that he offended in a similar way against other children. 15. There are references from friends and family which I have read. I accept that these are genuinely offered references by people who have known him for some time but did not know him at the time he committed these offences. They do not recognise him as the person who in fact committed these offences. I accept their opinions are genuinely offered. These include friends for whose children he is described as a father figure and in relation to whom he does not appear to have presented any risk. It is for those reasons that I accept it reduces the assessment of his being below average risk of sexual reoffending. In fact, it seems to me that he is a low risk for sexual reoffending and a relatively low risk for reoffending at all, given his history. 16. He comes to court with no criminal record in NSW. The only record is a record for driving under the influence of alcohol committed in the ACT in 2006 dealt with without conviction and with a 12-month bond, which he apparently served without incident. His prospects of rehabilitation, it seems to me, are relatively good in the circumstances but would be assisted if he had a longer than normal period of supervision in the community. As I have said, he comes to court as a person with no actual criminal record. He is entitled to have that taken into account to afford him some leniency. He is not, however, a person who can be described as being of prior good character given that he was committing these offences over a period of time in the early 2000s. But he does not have any criminal record as such. The Sentences 1. I then turn to assess the appropriate sentences for these offences. Pursuant to s 25AA of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), even though these offences occurred around 20 years ago, the sentences must reflect the current pattern of sentencing for offences of this type, recognising the increasing seriousness with which the community regards child sexual assault. The maximum penalties, however, remain as they were at the relevant time. 2. The sentences must reflect a degree of general deterrence. The community must by now, even if it has taken 30 years to make the point, must by now recognise that all child sexual assault offences are serious, and all will generally lead to a period of full time custody. These sentences must be sufficient to reinforce that message of general deterrence. It seems to me that there is not much required by way of specific deterrence once he is released particularly so, given the fact that there has been no offending of any type since 2004, with the exception of the drink driving charge in the ACT, which in itself did not result in a conviction. 3. When sentencing for the substantive offences, I of course must take into account the relevant Form 1 offences and to do so in a meaningful way. Each of them is relatively serious. They are both additional offences of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 committed in both cases involving CB and AB in very similar circumstances. The Form 1 offence in relation to EH again is a very similar if not identical incident of indecent assault. They must be taken into account in a meaningful way, and the meaningful way is to apply a sentence for the substantive offence to which they attach which is somewhat higher than it might otherwise be. There can be no doubt but that the s 5 threshold is crossed for all of these offences and there has been nothing to the contrary argued on behalf of the offender. 4. I then turn to the offences. Sequence 1 involving AB, is probably of the lowest objective criminality, albeit, however, for an offence for which there is a maximum penalty of 20 years. In my view the starting point for that is 4 years less 25%, therefore 3 years. I do that taking into account the Form 1 offence that also is attached to that. 5. For AB, the first of the offences, sequence 8, the starting point is 5 years less 25%, thus 3 years and 9 months. Sequence 9, taking into account the Form 1 offence, is 6 years less 25%, 4 years and 6 months. For these two offences, given that it is the same complainant, there needs to be a consideration of partial accumulation. There should not be complete concurrency because they are different acts on different occasions. But if these were the only offences being sentenced, then there would likely be a significant partial accumulation, with a sentence, in my view, of approximately 5 years. 6. For EH, taking into account the Form 1, it seems to me that the starting point should be 3 years, less 25%, thus giving 2 years and 3 months. If each of these sentences was totally accumulated on the other, that would give rise to an overall term of just over 10 years which in my view is excessive. The total criminality must be assessed to determine an aggregate sentence. It has to be a significant sentence given that there are three victims and seven different acts, five of which amount to sexual intercourse with a child under 10. 7. I have determined that the aggregate sentence should be 6 years. There are special circumstances as follows: 1. This is his first time in custody. 2. The medical condition of back pain and hearing loss will adversely affect his experience of prison. 3. His mental health conditions will likely deteriorate in custody because he will not have access to appropriate medication for ADHD and will not likely receive much in the way of psychiatric treatment because of his assessment as below average risk for sex reoffending. 4. He requires a longer than normal period on parole. 1. As a result, I will be setting an overall non-parole period of 4 years. Therefore, I make the following formal orders: 1. The offender is convicted on all offences. 2. He is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 of 6 years commencing 27 May 2022 and expiring 26 May 2028 with an aggregate non-parole period of 4 years commencing 27 May 2022 expiring 26 May 2026 with parole thereafter of 2 years commencing 27 May 2026 and expiring 26 May 2028. 3. Indicative sentences are: Sequence 1: 3 years. Sequence 6: 2 years, 3 months. Sequence 8: 3 years, 9 months. Sequence 9: 4 years, 6 months. 4. Form 1 offences taken into account for sequences 1, 6 and 9. ********** Amendments 31 January 2023 - corrected paragraph numbering DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 31 January 2023