New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Regina v Hayes [2004] NSWSC 1195 HEARING DATE(S) : 03/12/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 13 December 2004 JURISDICTION: Common Law JUDGMENT OF : M W Campbell AJ DECISION : A term of imprisonment of six years and nine months with a non-parole period of four years. The sentence and the non-parole period to commence on 4 August 2004. Eligible to be released on parole on 3 August 2008. CATCHWORDS : Sentence - Manslaughter - Plea - Parity LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1990 s24 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s21A,22,28(4)(b),44 Postiglione v R (1995) 189 CLR 295 CASES CITED : R v Previtera (1997) 94 ACrimR 76 R v Bollen (1998) 99 ACrimR 510 PARTIES : Regina Chantelle Jade Hayes FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2003/88 COUNSEL : L Wells (Crown) G Wendler (Accused) R McMahon - DPP (Crown) SOLICITORS : John Bettens & Co (Accused) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION M W CAMPBELL AJA Monday 13 December 2004 2003/88 REGINA v HAYES JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR; On 11 October 2004 Chantelle Jade Hayes was arraigned before me on an indictment that charged that, on 22 April 2001 at Cabramatta in the State of New South Wales she did murder Michael Paul Guinan ("the deceased"). She pleaded not guilty to that charge but guilty of the alternative charge that she did unlawfully kill the deceased. The Crown accepted the plea in full satisfaction of the indictment. Evidence and submissions on sentence were taken on 3 December 2004 and the matter stood over until today for sentence. Background to proceedings. 2 Three women were involved in the unlawful killing of the deceased Ms Hayes, Katty Vongsouvanh and Fialelei Loretta Namulauulu. 3 On 17 November 2003 Ms Vongsouvanh and Ms Namulauulu were to be tried upon a charge that they murdered the deceased, however, on that day they pleaded as Ms Hayes has now done and that plea was accepted by the Crown. 4 Thereafter Whealy J heard evidence and submissions on sentence and on 17 December 2003 sentenced each of them to terms of imprisonment of six years and nine months with a non-parole period of four years. 5 For reasons which were not the fault of Ms Hayes or her legal advisers her trial was not listed for hearing until 28 April 2004. On that day Newman AJ, having refused a permanent stay of proceedings on the indictment as framed, was compelled to adjourn the trial because of the unavailability of a suitably qualified interpreter in the Laotian language. 6 The trial was next listed for hearing on 5 October 2004. On that day the Court was informed of the proposed plea and its acceptance by the Crown. The matter was adjourned for arraignment before me on 11 October 2004. 7 It was not practicable for Whealy J to deal with the plea, as would have otherwise been desirable as he had sentenced the co-offenders. However, I have been provided with a copy of his Honour's detailed remarks on sentence, a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissing a Crown appeal against the sentences imposed and copies of the co-offenders' criminal histories. 8 I should observe that the evidence before Whealy J was not the same as the evidence before me and that it is my duty to reach my own conclusions, however, it will become apparent that this is a case in which the principle of parity is of major importance (see Postiglione v R (1995) 189 CLR 295). The factual basis upon which Whealy J proceeded is relevant to the determination of an appropriate sentence to be imposed upon Ms Hayes 9 A convenient summary of the broad facts of the offences as they appeared before Whealy J is set out in the judgment of Simpson J, with whom Bell and Howie JJ agreed, on the Crown Appeal. It is to be emphasised that the role assigned to Ms Hayes before Whealy J was not pressed nor supported by the material before me. 10 Simpson J said: "Put briefly, the circumstances of the offences were as follows. Each respondent was addicted to drugs. During the early evening of 22 April 2001 they, and another woman, CH, met (by chance) at or near Cabramatta Railway Station. The respondents were in Cabramatta with the intention of obtaining cocaine and heroin. At some point during the evening either or both of them obtained cocaine, but persisted in their attempts also to obtain heroin. For this purpose, with CH, they went to an apartment block in Bridge Street where they sought to contact a man they believed to be a dealer. Their attempts to contact him were unsuccessful. They nevertheless decided to wait for his return in the vicinity of the garage beneath the apartments. At this point the victim, Michael Guinan, arrived at the scene and joined the women. The respondents decided to use the cocaine they had already obtained. As they were doing this, an altercation erupted between CH and Mr Guinan. The respondents took CH's part, and, to assist her, held Mr Guinan by the arms and restrained him. All three women became involved in a fight with Mr Guinan. A knife was produced and Mr Guinan was stabbed a number of times. He was quickly and seriously injured and fell to the ground. There was a good deal of blood in evidence. CH knelt over him, appeared to search him, and removed his right shoe from which she appeared to take some object. All three women ran off. Mr Guinan stood up, and, holding his stomach, walked towards Bridge Street, calling for help. A neighbor, Mr Yee, who had witnessed the events from his adjacent apartment, called an ambulance. Mr Guinan was taken to hospital but died. The women returned to Cabramatta Railway Station, where they continued their quest for heroin. Later that evening, they came across another male, Mr Maher Sayadi, whom they kicked and punched. As a result, they were identified on closed circuit television, and were arrested and charged in relation to the assault on Mr Sayadi. Subsequently, each respondent was convicted of an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. 11 It is to be observed that the women last referred to were Ms Vongsouvanh and Ms Namulauulu. Ms Hayes took no part in the latter attack. The Remarks on Sentence of Whealy J 12 After noting that the maximum penalty for the crime of manslaughter is imprisonment for twenty five years (s24 Crimes Act 1990) Whealy J said: "Each counsel agreed on his client's behalf that the basis on which the Court might approach the sentencing process was, as had been suggested by the Crown, that the offenders committed or were parties to an unlawful and dangerous act that caused or contributed to the death of the deceased. It was agreed between the parties that the offenders were participants, with a co-offender Chantelle Hayes, in an attack, by the three of them, upon the deceased in which a knife was used to stab him a number of times causing his death. This attack carried with it, in an objective sense, an appreciable risk of serious injury." 13 The Crown had accepted that so far as the two offenders were concerned it could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that either of them was the person who stabbed the deceased. I interpolate that the Crown has now made that concession in respect of Ms Hayes also. I come back to that matter later. 14 Whealy J observed that there was not complete agreement about the circumstances of the stabbing and said: "It is fair to say that the Crown has advocated one of two alternative positions as being the ultimate finding that the Court would make. These positions were stated as follows: - 1. The present offenders continued to participate in the attack upon the deceased after the knife was produced and used to stab him, though the offenders did not advert to the possibility that really serious harm or death might be caused. 2. Alternatively, the offenders participated in the attack upon the deceased and although not aware of the use, by one of them, of the knife, their actions contributed to his death by preventing him from defending himself or escaping. The Crown has stated its preference for the first of these alternatives. Not surprisingly, counsel; for each offender has suggested that the Court would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt only as to the second." 15 Ms Vongsouvanh gave evidence before Whealy J. She did not give evidence before me nor did I have any material from her. Nonetheless, I think it appropriate to set out the Judge's account of part of that evidence as helpful in understanding his approach to the sentences to be imposed. I repeat my previous observation as to the role assigned to Ms Hayes. 16 The Judge said: "After injecting, she turned around and saw that Ms Hayes and the deceased were scuffling and pushing one another. She said she jumped in to help Chantelle and took hold of the deceased. She said there was a lot of pushing and shoving. By now the three women were involved in this fight. She said she did not remember it clearly but during the struggle, she noticed a lot of blood. She insisted that she did not know the deceased had been stabbed but she knew he was hurt. This was because of the amount of blood she saw on and around him. She denied that she had seen any of her friends with a knife at any stage that night. She denied also that she and Ms Namulauulu had been holding the deceased, one on each side of him, holding his wrists so that he could not move while the third woman stabbed him. Her recollection was that the last she saw was that the deceased was standing, obviously injured, when she ran away with the other women. She said she did not think this man was going to die when she ran away from the flats. In cross-examination, Ms Vongsouvanh conceded that during this flight and during the pushing and shoving, she could have been holding on to the arm of the deceased in the vicinity of his wrist; and that this possibility related to the actions also of one of the other girls. She agreed that she had no doubt that the deceased had been badly hurt; and that there was blood 'everywhere' at the time she saw it. She agreed that it was light enough for her to see the blood; and light enough in the area near the garage for her to prepare the mixture for the injection of cocaine and for its actual administration. Ms Vongsouvanh agreed that she had been doing her best, during the struggle, to restrain, that is, to hold on to the deceased." 17 Mr Yee gave evidence before Whealy J as he did before me. He was clearly a truthful witness. Mr Crown submitted, with consequences I shall discuss later, that Mr Yee's evidence was somewhat stronger before me than it was before Whealy J. However, I think the essential effect of the evidence on presently relevant matters remained the same. Whealy J summarised part of Mr Yee's evidence before him as follows: "As I have said, Mr Yee lived in the block of flats next to the building where the deceased received his injuries. The area where this happened was on the driveway in front of two garage doors beneath the adjacent block of flats. The view of this area that Mr Yee was able to see is shown in the photograph, Exhibit 'B'. Mr Yee said that he heard a noise coming from the adjacent block of flats and he went to the balcony door and then walked out onto the balcony itself. The scene he described, was in effect, this: the deceased had his back to the garage doors. Two of the women were standing on either side of him and the third woman was in front of the deceased facing him. Mr Yee described the struggle and the movement of the group from in front of one garage door and then across to the second door. The two women continued to restrain the deceased. They were holding his arms at about wrist level so that his arms could not be raised above his waist. At that point, the third lady, he said, was holding a knife. This was a silver blade, about 15-20 centimetres long in the blade. She was holding the knife in her right hand above her shoulder with the blade protruding out of her hand below the little finger. He described the deceased struggling to free himself, but being restrained by the two women on either side of him. He did not see the actual blow or blows with the knife. It happened very quickly but the man fell down while the women were still grabbing his hands. It was while he was on the ground that the third lady, that is the one with the knife, tried to search his pockets and clothing and later took off his right shoe. In cross-examination he described this third lady as having an Australian accent. She seemed very angry. She had a 'solid to fat build' and had a sloppy joe with a hood at the back of it. She had a round face and wavy hair. She was a much bigger build than the other two women. This description, it must be said, fits Chantelle Hayes' appearance on the evening (see Exhibit 'D") rather than the appearance of either of the present offenders. During cross-examination and re-examination, Mr Yee agreed that he had given a statement to the police about the matter on 23 April 2001. In that statement he had said: - 'I cannot say I saw the male get stabbed although it is possible it happened when he was struggling to get away from the females. When this happened, it was very quick and the females were holding on to him very close so it was hard to say exactly what they were doing to him, particularly the third female.' " 18 I should note that the photographs of the area were before me and that Mr Yee's current recollection is that he remained within the lounge room rather than going onto the balcony. Quite apart from other matters to which I shall come the cross-examination of Mr Yee by Mr Wendler, Counsel for Ms Hayes, demonstrated the difficulty of differentiation between the three women. 19 Whealy J was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the stabbing occurred in the precise circumstances described by Mr Yee, that is, that the two women held onto the deceased's lower arms and wrists so as to prevent him from defending himself in a situation where, to the knowledge of the offenders, a knife was produced and then used to stab him four or five times whilst thus restrained. He said: "First, the period of observation available to Mr Yee was a very brief one. It was unlikely to have exceeded about three minutes. Secondly, there can be no doubt, as Exhibit 'B' plainly demonstrates, that Mr Yee's view from his balcony was somewhat restricted particularly in relation to the area in front of the far garage door. Thirdly, the manner in which Mr Yee described the two women as holding the wrists of the deceased necessarily meant that it would have been difficult for him to see the hands of these women, allegedly restraining the deceased in the particular position described. Fourthly, the objective evidence about the injuries to the deceased's arms does not support the proposition that he had been restrained in the manner described. He did have one bruise to the forearm, but it was the smallest of the bruises to his forearm measuring 3.5 by 3cms. There were other bruises on his arms. They, however, were all to the upper arms and they were all larger areas of bruising. 20 Whealy J also said: "On the other hand, it needs to be said that I do not accept Ms Vongsouvanh's evidence in its entirety. In particular, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both she and Ms Namulauulu, towards the end of the struggle, would have been aware that the third woman had produced a knife. While it is true that they were involved in pushing and shoving and struggling with the deceased, I am quite satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, at the very end, they would have been aware that a knife was being used and that the considerable amount of blood plainly visible was caused by knife stabs. The deceased was stabbed four, possibly five times by the third woman. It defies credibility and commonsense to suggest that the other two were not aware that this frenzied bout of wounding was done with a knife, plainly visible to each of them. I am satisfied, however, that neither Ms Vongsouvanh nor Ms Namulauulu was the wielder of the knife. There is no evidence to suppose that, prior to the struggle, either woman knew that Chantelle Hayes had a knife or was likely to produce it during the course of an argument. Once it was produced, however, there can be no doubt that each woman was then aware that it was being used to stab Mr Guinan." 21 The judge then found: "As a consequence of these findings, an assessment of the objective criminality of each offender, in my view, falls somewhere between the two alternatives postulated by the Crown. On the findings I have made, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the two offenders continued to participate in the attack upon Michael Guinan after the knife had been produced but necessarily only for a very short period of time. That is to say, the stabbing occurred very quickly and their awareness of the presence of the knife and the wounding of the deceased happened within that very short period of time. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each of the offenders contributed to the death of the deceased by preventing him from defending himself or escaping but I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that their method of restraining him was in the structured manner suggested by Mr Yee. Rather, there was a haphazard pulling, shoving, grabbing and holding during the course of which a knife was produced and used very rapidly. Although the physical actions employed by each of the co-offenders against the deceased did not and could not in fact have caused his death, the level of their criminality, in my view, is to be assessed at a serious level." 22 As Simpson J pointed out "by the Crown's acceptance of the plea, his Honour was constrained in his fact finding." [27]. The same constraint applies to me. 23 On those facts Whealy J, having considered the relevant factors including those laid down in s21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 proceeded to impose the sentences to which I have referred. 24 As it happens Whealy J made the sentences partially concurrent with earlier imposed sentences referable to the later assault upon Mr Sayadi. Ms Hayes was not involved in that assault. 25 The Court of Criminal Appeal expressly found that Whealy J had dealt with all the relevant considerations under s21A. There would be no utility, as the matter has been argued, in me covering the same ground except in relation to those matters where a point of distinction resulting in a possibly different sentence might be said to arise. 26 Before doing so it is convenient to record that Mr Crown said in opening: "The position of the Crown in respect of the present accused is that the Crown cannot say and does not say in these proceedings which of the three alleged offenders (was the stabber). The present accused was amongst those three, therefore it is proper and appropriate that your Honour proceed subject to the evidence that your Honour may hear today is what I expect it to be, that it will be appropriate for your Honour to place the role of the present accused in the same position as the two alleged co-offenders." 27 Mr Wendler by reference to some video material from street cameras, the limited amount of blood on Ms Hayes' clothes, the absence of her shoeprints at the scene, some quite effective cross-examination of Mr Yee as to his perceptions and descriptions and other material sought to demonstrate that Ms Hayes was not the stabber. No doubt it was considerations of this sort that led the Crown to make the concessions that it did. I do not need to pursue the detail for Ms Hayes is to be sentenced on the basis that she was not the stabber. 28 Mr Crown did submit that, whilst I was to treat Ms Hayes as a holder, rather than the stabber, I should accept Mr Yee's account to a level that would support the first alternative put to Whealy J rather than the version of the facts accepted by him. 29 I do not do so, substantially for the reasons of Whealy J set out above. I would add on the issue of Mr Yee's observations that Mr Guinan was stabbed four or five times yet Mr Yee did not observe the actual stabbing. I am also mindful of the constraint referred to by Simpson J. 30 In her second ERISP on 18 February 2003 Ms Hayes sought to distance herself from the physical confrontation with Mr Guinan. She said that she was following the other three when the other two women grabbed Mr Guinan. She did not, she said, become involved, although, she did later say that she put her hand on Mr Guinan's back when she was endeavouring to stop them. She said that she did see blood and did see Katty (Ms Vongsouvanh) make a plunging movement with her hand. 31 Ms Hayes did not give evidence and the account in the ERISP is in major conflict with Mr Yee's evidence. I do not accept it. Whilst I have not, as Whealy J did not, accept all Mr Yee's evidence as accurate I do accept that when he looked out onto the scene he saw four persons, a man held by two women and another woman facing them. 32 So far as objective criminality is concerned Ms Hayes is in the same position as the other two women when considered on the agreed basis upon which they were sentenced. The Guilty Plea 33 Ms Vongsouvanh and Ms Namulauulu pleaded guilty when first called for trial. Whealy J did not accept that the plea was entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity, however, he did allow a 15 percent discount pursuant to s22 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Ms Hayes did not indicate her intention to enter a plea when first called for trial. That trial did not proceed for reasons referred to earlier and Ms Hayes indicated her intention to plead on the further date fixed some twelve months later. The utility of the plea, whilst still substantial, was reduced and logically some reduction in the discount would be appropriate. Mr Wendler submitted that if a reduction were to be made it should be small. For reasons which appear later I do not take time to formulate an exact reduction. Subjective Factors 34 In order to consider whether the comparison of criminal records, prospects of rehabilitation, or other subjective considerations raise points of distinction between the three women it is necessary for me to say something of those matters as they relate to Ms Hayes. 35 She did not give evidence before me. However, I was assisted by her criminal history record, a pre-sentence report prepared by Ms Rosemary Martin, a psychology report prepared by Ms Robillard and the impressive evidence of one of Ms Hayes' sisters, Mrs Rochelle Corrasco. 36 Ms Hayes was placed on a 12 months recognisance at Port Macquarie Local Court in March 1997 in respect of a charge of goods in custody. At the Liverpool District Court she was sentenced in October 1997 to 350 hours of community service in respect of being an accessory after the fact to robbery in company. It appears she initially failed to comply with the requirement of community service, however, she later did so and a breach report was withdrawn. In February 2003 Ms Hayes received a 12 months supervised section 12 bond at the Wauchope Local Court in respect of a charge of common assault. 37 The presentence report and the psychologist's report are not easy to reconcile on all aspects, and, unfortunately, the evidence of Mrs Carrasco did not deal with the more extensive employment history of Ms Hayes that appeared from Ms Robillard's report then appeared in the pre-sentence report. Nonetheless, I think that the salient features appeared clearly enough. 38 Ms Hayes was born on 1 July 1974 in Kempsey. Both she and her mother were unwell. She was initially fostered to and then adopted by a large non-indigenous family who remain supportive of her. 39 Her Aboriginality caused some problems at times during her schooling at a Seventh Day Adventist school. She also suffered from resentment from members of her natural family and other community members because of her changed circumstances. The members of her natural family attended the same church, although she otherwise had little contact with them. I should observe that it is clear that Ms Hayes' adopted family tried their very best to support and encourage her. 40 She left school at 15. She had had trouble with racial taunts and also struggled academically, in part because of continuing ill health. It would seem that she did a six-month course in childcare and other courses. Ms Robillard notes a trip to America and also the operation of a model agency, Koori Calendar, which had some success. 41 In her late teens Ms Hayes moved to Sydney. She formed an association with a Samoan man which ended when he was killed in a motor car accident. Ms Hayes told Ms Robillard she never got over that event. Mrs Carrasco confirmed that the event had a profound effect on Ms Hayes. 42 She was later involved in an unhappy marriage with a Fijian man, and later again in a relationship with a New Zealander of Samoan parentage referred to as Maaaft. He has been deported to New Zealand after serving a term of imprisonment. However, it seems that Ms Hayes hopes to resume that relationship. The couple have a two year old son who is being cared for by Ms Hayes' now elderly adopted parents and a sister. 43 From Ms Robillard's report it appears it was Maaaft who introduced Ms Hayes to drugs, specifically heroin, upon which she became speedily "hooked". The pre-sentence report notes three unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation through detoxification programmes, the last being shortly before the present offence. Ms Robillard's report refers, however, to Ms Hayes cessation of drug use following the events leading to this charge and her return to the family home in the Wauchope area. 44 Ms Robillard found on intelligence testing that Ms Hayes was comfortably within the average range. She also found that Ms Hayes had poor self-esteem based on the past history of relationships that were painful. 45 Ms Robillard found that Ms Hayes was deeply remorseful and deeply traumatised by the incident and suffered related symptoms of Post Traumatic Disorder. The report also refers to her difficulty in coping with imprisonment and missing her family and two year old son. 46 The report goes on: "On the positive side Chantelle has used this tragic life experience to change her life and direction. She described drug free and stable behaviour over the past few years. - - - - The client was involved in this offence at a low point in her life. She has made remarkable positive progress since then and is keen to go on developing her potential with a view to ultimately making a positive contribution to society". 47 The pre-sentence report is, to say the least, much more guarded. 48 However Mrs Carrasco said, in answer to a general question, that: "She is dearly loved by her family, and that she has got a good heart and made mistakes. She has made a lot of mistakes, and just by silly mistakes that she is aware of. But she does want to do the right thing. She has a part of her that really really tries to do the right thing as long as she is kept away from the wrong people". 49 I accept that evidence and on balance consider that Ms Hayes has good prospects of rehabilitation. It is convenient to say that I consider that Ms Hayes would benefit greatly from an extended period of counselling and supervision upon release from custody. Accordingly, I find special circumstances for the purposes of s44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Whealy J made the same finding in respect of the other two women. 50 It is not necessary to take time to set out Whealy J's detailed examination of similar aspects in relation to the other two women. 51 I agree with Mr Wendler's submission that Ms Hayes' record compares broadly with that of Ms Namulauulu. I think, effectively for present purposes, their other subjective features and prospects of rehabilitation do not provide any point of distinction in terms of sentence. 52 Ms Vongsouvanh, on the other hand, has a much more extensive record, mainly as to drug matters but including a sentence of six months imposed in March 1999 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Whealy J thought her prospects of rehabilitation, although he did think there were such prospects, less than those of Ms Namulauulu. 53 For reasons which he gave Whealy J did not differentiate between the two women in the sentence he imposed as a consequence of those differences. Nonetheless, he acknowledged them and I think it appropriate in the circumstances of the matter before me to acknowledge the difference in the way that later appears. 54 I should note that I was provided with a victim impact statement prepared by Ms Patricia Guinan, the deceased's elder sister. One can only sympathise with her and other members of her family in respect of their tragic loss. However, I do not consider that it is appropriate to have regard to the statement in determining the sentence to be imposed. See s28(4)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76, and R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510. It would be contrary to principle for the material to impact on the sentence to be imposed. 55 I should also note that, without objection by the Crown, Mr Wendler informed me that Ms Hayes has been assaulted and victimised in prison, and as a result she has been and will be held in protective custody. This and the restrictions that go with it, including no access to the chapel and the library, it can be expected, will make prison harder for her. Ms Hayes is a diabetic. She presently relies upon tablets. It is suggested that on her prognosis she should be on insulin. The proper treatment of her condition is the responsibility of the prison authorities. There is no reason to suppose such treatment will not afforded to her. The Sentence to Be Imposed 56 I have concluded that the sentence I should impose is the same as that imposed by Whealy J. 57 Any lesser sentence would not be appropriate in all the circumstances, including the fact there was a violent attack resulting in the tragic and unnecessary death of a human being. 58 I have decided that I should not reduce the effect of the discount allowed by Whealy J. My reason for that course is that I think a reduction may justly be offset by the following three considerations. 59 First, although Ms Hayes' criminal record, subjective circumstances, and prospects of rehabilitation are much the same as those of Ms Namulauulu, they are markedly better than those of Ms Vongsouvanh. 60 Second, on the material before me Ms Hayes has found, and will find, time served in prison more difficult than the other two. 61 And third, the other two women did have the advantage of a portion of their sentence and non-parole period being made concurrent with sentences they were serving for an offence with which Ms Hayes had no connection. 62 My view relates to both the head sentence and the non-parole period. I note that Simpson J observed that looking at the matter only in the context of the sentence imposed for manslaughter: "It may readily be said that the reduction was generous in its extent". I am dealing with the matter in the context referred to, however, Simpson J was dealing with a different context. I do not take this comment to preclude me from making an order in the same terms. I consider that in the circumstances of the matter before me I should make such an order. 63 I note that it was agreed that to allow for periods already served in custody the sentence should commence on 4 August 2004. 64 Chantelle Jade Hayes, you are sentenced to a term of six years and nine months imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. The sentence and the non-parole period are to commence on 4 August 2004. You will be eligible to be released on parole on 3 August 2008. 65 I remind the relevant authorities that Ms Hayes is a diagnosed diabetic and requires treatment as such. 66 I order that the exhibits may be returned after 28 days. ********** Last Modified: 12/15/2004 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.